Kep: Problems With The Cipher Theory

[Xander]

I have been repeatedly told that no one has dared to respond to last year's FAIR presentation by William Schryver. In fact, I wrote up numerous responses to his arguments and some here have requested that I explain what exactly is wrong with his theory. Instead of starting from scratch I'm going to relay some of the responses I wrote up during the days following his presentation.

Crucial to Schryver's thesis is the premise that since none of the counting characters were Egyptian, Joseph Smith never thought they were Egytian. However, I provided conclusive evidence that several of the characters in the list were identical to the characters in the Anthon transcript, which of course to Joseph Smith's mind represented "Reformed Egyptian" characters from the Gold Plates.

Schryver responded to my anecdote with the following quip:

I saw how the inimitable Cracker Graham has been trying to draw connections between the counting document and the "caractors". Although I don't think his correspondences are all that impressive (most of them only bear a slight or partial resemblance)

So according to Will, the character representing the number 9 in the Egyptian Counting list, is "identical" to the Sanskrit character for the number 9. Now you tell me if this:

is "identical" to this:

Pretty close, if it weren't for the fact that the Sanskrit version has the main leg at a sharp angle.

But according to Will's perception, the character from the Anthon transcript have only a "slight resemblance" to those in the Egyptian Counting list. So in other words, this:

has only a partial resemblance to this:

That which needs to be perceived a certain way in order to boost a preconceived idea, will be perceived accordingly. And that which needs to be perceived in a way to undermine a counterargument, will be perceived accordingly. This was never as apparent as in Will's claim that this character:

Had partial resemblance to this character:

But was "identical" to this one:

As you should be able to discern, the Templar cipher in the last example has an extra arm protruding from the bottom curve, and the character representing the number 6 has an extra loop at the top curve. The list of Sanskrit and Templar ciphers Will alludes to is found in this chart.

But he was careful not to present any examples. Instead, we were expected to just trust his judgment. Will responded to my observations here at this forum with:

Graham doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that even if the characters do originate with the Anthon manuscript, that would also be perfectly consistent with my so-called "cipher thesis" of the KEP.

He apparently misses the point, which is this: I proved his claim (which he stressed with emphasis) that none of the characters had any connection whatsoever to Egyptian, was demonstrably false. This is crucial since he claims understanding the Egyptian Counting document was "key" to understanding the meaning and purpose of the KEP, which is the cipher. If he doesn't properly understand the Egyptian Counting documents, he has no basis for his cipher theory.

The point is that they were willing to use characters from all sorts of places.

Then why not use Russian, Latin, Indian, Oriental or even Portuguese characters? The reason is because no one would ever confuse those with Ancient Egyptian! A truly "random" selection of characters, as Will proposes, would surely contain some characters which could never be confused with those of ancient origin. Will says Joseph Smith didn't care where they came from, but the fact is all the characters have one thing in common: They were all understood to be of ancient origin, which is what we would expect if Joseph Smith wanted to show these off as genuinely Egyptian symbols. And he knew no one was in a position to falsify his claims because no one knew what symbols represent Egyptian numbers.

They knew perfectly well that they weren't Egyptian

Will provides zero evidence for, only his say so.

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

Really? Let's just look at the first three characters:

As you can see, William simply doesn't know what he is talking about. The first three characters are found in these documents and the third is taken from the papyri. Apparently, the folks here now know more about these documents than he does. I mean what could possibly be a valid excuse for not recognizing the first three characters are explicitly detailed in these documents? And this, coming from the same person who had just let loose from his mouth, "Metcalfe and Vogel don't have a grasp of the documents."

Another problem with Will's enciphering theory is that it uses symbols that appear almost identical to the meanings they are supposedly encrypting. For instance, Will says they had an endless supply of characters, limited only by their imaginations, so why on earth would they choose a symbol identical to the number 4, to represent the number 4? Why would they choose symbols that look just like 5, 7 and 8 to represent 5, 7 and 8? No, this makes no sense at all in the context of enciphering.

.

Furthermore, after pitching his cipher theory Will immediately draws our attention to the Masonic cipher keys which illustrate and obvious system involving two grids. This is a far cry different from the system Will is proposing for the simple fact that these grids make it easy to remember what each character means by envisioning the grids in one's mind. This is why it was important that the Masonic ciphers represented right angles, as each would represent a whole or partial segment of a cube within a grid. This made it easier for there to be a "cipher key" in which all transmitted data, could be deciphered. However, what Will proposes makes it impossible for a cipher key to be practical or even workable, and these men, themselves familiar with Masonic ciphers, would have known this before even starting it. You just can't invent an endless number of characters and expect to create a cipher with no workable key. And you can't assign to them meanings consisting of long phrases. It makes absolutely no sense. And it makes even less sense to assign to them sounds.

No, anyone familiar with translations should understand this is precisely what was going on. This was not an enciphering effort. Joseph Smith included an Egyptian Counting document for the same reason I include a section on Portuguese numbers, for those beginners wanting to learn Portuguese. Numbers are important to any attempt to teach or learn different languages, as are their corresponding sounds. Mystery solved. And speaking of which, I couldn't help but notice the similarities in the way the numbers are translated into English and the way numbers are translated in Spanish or Portuguese. According to the Egyptian Counting, nine is 9, ten is 10 but 19 is written out as, not nineteen, but rather "ten and nine." This makes no sense in the context of enciphering but it makes perfect sense when dealing with literal translations. It appears to be a word for word translation from proposed Egyptian to English, the same way Portuguese for 19 is dezenove, which literally translated means "ten and nine."

The point is, these documents make perfect sense if we accept that Joseph Smith and is helpers were doing exactly what they said they were doing: providing a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. William tries to get around this by referring to all references to "English explanations" as "substitute values" while insisting "Egyptian" doesn't really refer to Egyptian and "translation" doesn't really refer to translation. He essentially recreates the entire project to conform to all the elements that would suggest enciphering, and he packages it together in an extremely fast paced presentation that most observers unfamiliar with the documents cannot be expected to fully understand the problems with his assertions as they relate to most of the material, which he didn't address.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Nomad]

This post is a response to an argument Schryver did not make. But I guess it doesn't really matter, since Graham is just talking to himself anyway. lol

[Xander]

Nonsense. This is exactly what Schryver argued, and those were his responses I quoted above.

Maybe you should read through the refutation before making such silly proclamations about what it does or doesn't address.

[Nomad]

No. You have consistently misrepresented the arguments. It's your standard method. You are not a debater, you're a propagandist.

Nomad: You are removed from the thread for name calling.

[Xander]

No. You have consistently misrepresented the arguments. It's your standard method. You are not a debater, you're a propagandist.

Well let's see if you can back up your claims with evidence, Will. Name one thing in my post that is a "misrepresentation" of the Cipher argument. If you could, you would have done it already. But all you're left with is assertion and well poisoning. I doubt you'll be able to get away with argument via assertion. You were never able to get away with it on the other forum, and I doubt you'll be able to get away with it here.

Xander: Let's leave the other forum out of the conversation and refrain from any sockpuppet accusations.

[Xander]

Let's see how confident you are in your bombast. Did he or did he not say the following?

"the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar."

Yes or no?

This is a rather simple question that will cut to the heart of the matter to determine whether you're trying to argue from substance, or rhetoric.

His statement is easily falsifiable for those who are familiar with the materials. I falsified his claim with little effort, and now you want to claim I'm misrepresenting him? Good luck with that.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Crucial to Schryver's thesis is the premise that since none of the counting characters were Egyptian, Joseph Smith never thought they were Egytian. However, I provided conclusive evidence that several of the characters in the list were identical to the characters in the Anthon transcript, which of course to Joseph Smith's mind represented "Reformed Egyptian" characters from the Gold Plates.

Some of your matches do not match up very well. The one that looks like a 5 and a 4 are not identical either. Just as you criticized Will's Sanskrit 9. And of course you have other issues were most of the counting documents characters do not appear on the Anthon Transcript.

So you have essentially proved nothing. And I would say that Will's quote of "What is most interesting, however, is that the characters in the Egyptian Counting

document are very obviously not Egyptian! They have no relationship whatsoever to

the papyri."

Any way, how can one be certain that the scanned image that says "Caractors" is really the Anthon Transcript? I am genuinely curious about this. So no need to respond with guns a blazing?

"the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar."

He may have at one point, but as to his presentation last year, I do not believe the above quoted was in his presentation.

In fact he seems to be saying the opposite of what you just claimed. here

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B03QD7Z2zHZJMWY3NGZmZjQtZTAxNi00OTgzLWE0MzAtYzYyNGY3ZjNhZDA0&hl=en

it is

understood to rest on the fact that most of the characters in the left-hand column (as

John Gee has just shown us) correspond to bona fide Egyptian characters that can be

found on the portion of the Joseph Smith Papyri known as the Book of Breathings.

Will does make a great point here.

If, as Mormon critics have argued for the past 40 years, the Alphabet and Grammar was

produced before the text of the Book of Abraham was received, and was the means by

which that text was subsequently “translated” from the papyri, then how likely is it that

the would-be translators would include virtually nothing but unique words and phrases

from an as yet unwritten book?

And here.

You see, the thesis of the Alphabet and Grammar as a papyri deciphering

tool presupposes that the authors don’t already know the text their tool is

being designed to produce!

And here.

Of the “substantial words” attested in all three of the Egyptian Alphabet documents,

over 90% are correspondingly attested in the first three chapters of the Book of

Abraham, while being rarely attested, if at all, in Abraham 4 and 5 and Genesis 12 and

15.

Another thing I found interesting is this.

What is most interesting, however, is that the characters in the Egyptian Counting

document are very obviously not Egyptian! They have no relationship whatsoever to

the papyri.

Anyway carry on.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Xander]

Some of your matches do not match up very well.

They match up much better than Will's "identical" comparisons from sanskrit, which is the point. Will needs us to believe that there is no reason in the world why Joseph Smith would think these symbols were Egyptian. I provided clear evidence to the contrary.

So you have essentially proved nothing

I proved William misrepresented the documents and I gave plenty reason to believe Joseph Smith understood these symbols to be Egyptian, contrary to Will's bald assertions.

And I would say that Will's quote of "What is most interesting, however, is that the characters in the Egyptian Counting document are very obviously not Egyptian! They have no relationship whatsoever to the papyri."

And no one ever claimed they did.

He may have at one point

What do you mean he "may" have? I provided a direct citation from him during his post-presentation defense.

but as to his presentation last year, I do not believe the above quoted was in his presentation. In fact he seems to be saying the opposite of what you just claimed. here

No, one citation refers to the papyri and the other the Alphabet and Grammar. You clearly don't understand the differences between the two.

Will does make a great point here.

Based on what evidence? His complete misrepresentation of the source documents and your bald assertion? I have already demonstrated that the bulk of the Book of Abraham already existed as a mental narrative, since it was essentially borrowed from the Book of Genesis. Will took what we already said and then jumped to the illicit conclusion that there must have existed a narrative written on paper somewhere in the form of a missing Q manuscript. So Will's argumeht is not only based on a ridiculous methodology of his own making, where he gets to decide which words are 'substantial" as they are arbitrarily plugged into his model and support the conclusion he is looking for. His argument it also essentially a straw man. You view them as "great points" because you want to, not because you understand these materials well enough to make an informed judgement either way. I'm demonstrating that Will doesn't properly represent these documents nor does he understand them.

[wenglund]

Crucial to Schryver's thesis is the premise that since none of the counting characters were Egyptian, Joseph Smith never thought they were Egytian.

In relation to the Cipher Theory, here is Will's main point or "thesis": "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.” (Emphasis mine)

Since Will doesn't directly speak to whether Joseph thought the EC characters were Egyptian or not, could you please explain why you believe the premise you introduce above is critical to Will's "thesis"?

Also, to your way of thinking, would Joseph consider the following to be Egyptian characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[Loran Blood]

Then why not use Russian, Latin, Indian, Oriental or even Portuguese characters? The reason is because no one would ever confuse those with Ancient Egyptian! A truly "random" selection of characters, as Will proposes, would surely contain some characters which could never be confused with those of ancient origin. Will says Joseph Smith didn't care where they came from, but the fact is all the characters have one thing in common: They were all understood to be of ancient origin, which is what we would expect if Joseph Smith wanted to show these off as genuinely Egyptian symbols. And he knew no one was in a position to falsify his claims because no one knew what symbols represent Egyptian numbers.

This is not serious, critical argument, but an exercise in psychologizing and forensic mind reading that assumes what it attempts to demonstrate. If, as Nomad points out, the entire argument per se is a strawman, then the above might look like a quibble, but it does tell us something about the quality of the evidence the author really has at his disposal.

[Loran Blood]

I proved William misrepresented the documents and I gave plenty reason to believe Joseph Smith understood these symbols to be Egyptian, contrary to Will's bald assertions.

At best - at the very best - you've shown that Will's interpertations or inferenes reagarding them might be wrong or misplaced. Your claim of "mispreresentation" is certainly what you want to believe, and what you want others to believe, but being wrong (if Will is wrong) is not an ethical lapse.

Based on what evidence? His complete misrepresentation of the source documents and your bald assertion? I have already demonstrated that the bulk of the Book of Abraham already existed as a mental narrative, since it was essentially borrowed from the Book of Genesis.

As there is no possible way to either confirm of falsify this kind of assertion (The same mental narrative existed throughout the entire Western world at the time), of what intellectual value is it? It might be true. Then again, even if the "mental narrative" is correct, this gives us no logical connection with the Book of Abraham as an independent, divinely inspired text as the Church claims it to be (which contains numerous ideas utterly foreign to the post-exilic Yahwist redactors version that has come down to us).

Edited August 9, 2011 by Loran Blood

[T-Shirt]

I'm demonstrating that Will doesn't properly represent these documents nor does he understand them.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to get something off my chest. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of this:

• Your inability to understand the difference...
  
• You understand incorrectly.
  
• You obviously don't understand context.
  
• ...while failing to understand the meaning of a straw man.
  
• You don't understand history...
  
• ...the problem is you do not understand ...
  
• ...you don't understand how debates are suppose to work.
  
• You simply don't understand how context works in inductive text critical arguments.
  
• You don't seem to understand what hearsay is...
  
• ...but you don't seem to understand the context of what she was saying.
  
• You don't even understand the significance...
  
• Meaning, he doesn't understand...
  
• I explain how he doesn't understand their relevance to his own argument.
  
• ..without any apparent understanding of their relevance.
  
• ...you do so in a way that reveals your misunderstanding of what he is arguing.
  
• You simply don't understand my argument...
  
• You do not understand the scientific method...
  
• There is no point in trying to talk to an anonymous person who doesn't understand basic facts...
  
• So far you have provided no evidence that you understand critical arguments.
  
• You don't understand what the KEP is...
  
• ...the problem is you do not understand the subject well enough.
  
• But as I said, you don't understand this topic well enough...
  
• ...nor does he understand them.
  
• You clearly don't understand the differences between the two.
  

These are all quotes from Xander's posts.

Kevin, you seem like a bright guy, and I have been hoping that we would start to see some reasoned, polite and congenial debates since you have returned, yet, sadly, in my estimation, you are not capable of doing such, I wish it were otherwise. I have never seen, in all of my 52 years, someone like you who claims, so often, to understand things so perfectly while claiming that those with whom he disagrees just don't understand things as well as he does.

If the mods deem this post to be out of bounds, then, please, delete it.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited August 9, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Loran Blood]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to get something off my chest. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of this:

• Your inability to understand the difference...
• You understand incorrectly.
• You obviously don't understand context.
• ...while failing to understand the meaning of a straw man.
• You don't understand history...
• ...the problem is you do not understand ...
• ...you don't understand how debates are suppose to work.
• You simply don't understand how context works in inductive text critical arguments.
• You don't seem to understand what hearsay is...
• ...but you don't seem to understand the context of what she was saying.
• You don't even understand the significance...
• Meaning, he doesn't understand...
• I explain how he doesn't understand their relevance to his own argument.
• ..without any apparent understanding of their relevance.
• ...you do so in a way that reveals your misunderstanding of what he is arguing.
• You simply don't understand my argument...
• You do not understand the scientific method...
• There is no point in trying to talk to an anonymous person who doesn't understand basic facts...
• So far you have provided no evidence that you understand critical arguments.
• You don't understand what the KEP is...
• ...the problem is you do not understand the subject well enough.
• But as I said, you don't understand this topic well enough...
• ...nor does he understand them.
• You clearly don't understand the differences between the two.

These are all quotes from Xander's posts.

Kevin, you seem like a bright guy, and I have been hoping that we would start to see some reasoned, polite and congenial debates since you have returned, yet, sadly, in my estimation, you are not capable of doing such, I wish it were otherwise. I have never seen, in all of my 52 years, someone like you who claims, so often, to understand things so perfectly while claiming that those with whom he disagrees just don't understand things as well as he does.

If the mods deem this post to be out of bounds, then, please, delete it.

Best,

T-Shirt

Interesting that this looks very much like similar lists I have compiled in the recent past.

[Xander]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to get something off my chest. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of this:

• Your inability to understand the difference...
• You understand incorrectly.
• You obviously don't understand context.
• ...while failing to understand the meaning of a straw man.
• You don't understand history...
• ...the problem is you do not understand ...
• ...you don't understand how debates are suppose to work.
• You simply don't understand how context works in inductive text critical arguments.
• You don't seem to understand what hearsay is...
• ...but you don't seem to understand the context of what she was saying.
• You don't even understand the significance...
• Meaning, he doesn't understand...
• I explain how he doesn't understand their relevance to his own argument.
• ..without any apparent understanding of their relevance.
• ...you do so in a way that reveals your misunderstanding of what he is arguing.
• You simply don't understand my argument...
• You do not understand the scientific method...
• There is no point in trying to talk to an anonymous person who doesn't understand basic facts...
• So far you have provided no evidence that you understand critical arguments.
• You don't understand what the KEP is...
• ...the problem is you do not understand the subject well enough.
• But as I said, you don't understand this topic well enough...
• ...nor does he understand them.
• You clearly don't understand the differences between the two.

These are all quotes from Xander's posts.

Kevin, you seem like a bright guy, and I have been hoping that we would start to see some reasoned, polite and congenial debates since you have returned, yet, sadly, in my estimation, you are not capable of doing such, I wish it were otherwise. I have never seen, in all of my 52 years, someone like you who claims, so often, to understand things so perfectly while claiming that those with whom he disagrees just don't understand things as well as he does.

If the mods deem this post to be out of bounds, then, please, delete it.

Best,

T-Shirt

It is responses like these that make these discussions go no where. Too much complaining about the messenger, no substantive rebuttals to the message. Do you really want me to type up a list of condescending remarks aimed at me by people like Loran, Wade and especially Pahoran? Do I really need to? Virtually all the remarks you're complaining about were in direct response to some form of condescension, where my spirituality is attacked, my presumed associations are attacked, my character is attacked, etc. All I have done is point out that people liek Pahoran, Loran, Mola, wade and Schryver do not understand these documents well enough to have a meaningful debate. I feel like if I engage, I don't come to this conclusion lightly, but the evidence is simply too overwhelming. If you say a comment about the Papyri is synonymous with a comment about the GAEL (mola), you simply do not understand this subject well enough. Is you say the Facsimiles have nothing to do with the KEP, you simply do not understand this subject well enough (wade). When you confuse the Sensen text with the Hypocephalus (Loran) you simply do not understand the subject well enough. When you say none of the GAEL characters appear on the Joseph Smith papyri (Schryver) you simply do not understand the documents well enough to be debating anyone. Now you may think these were typos or simple mistakes, but each and every one was delivered with bombastic certitude while attacking me for anti-Mormon bias in some way.

So if the best you can do is point to instances where I claim to know more than others, well I think I am doing fairly well by comparison to their condescension. I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I have buried myself in this topic since 2003 and I've seen little evidence that more than a few LDS defenders have a decent grasp of the subject. And why would they? They have FARMS articles to fall back on if they have concerns. Only a couple of people have bothered to do their own research on this subject and offer some original thought and analysis based on the available evidence. It gets tiring when the only people responding to you are responding in what appears to be a sense of apologetic duty. And they're clearly reading from some outdated apologetic article as they're typing up a response - as Loran does so frequently.

I don't have a lot of time to post today and probably won't again until this weekend. If you have a response to the refutations I have provided to Schryver, something beyond psychoanalysis of my motives or complaints about my style, then I welcome anything you have to say. I hope you do.

[Loran Blood]

It is responses like these that make these discussions go no where. Too much complaining about the messenger, no substantive rebuttals to the message.

No Kevin, its your presence in these discussions that forestall any stimulating, productive debate. All T-Shirt did was to take notice of the obvious, and make the obvious explicit. He's hardly the only one to have taken notice of your psychological and affectual nature and wondered out loud about it.

Do you really want me to type up a list of condescending remarks aimed at me by people like Loran, Wade and especially Pahoran?

All of which, for years on end, have been at all times defensive responses to your own provocations. What does the Book of Mormon say again about what you send out coming back to you?

Do I really need to? Virtually all the remarks you're complaining about were in direct response to some form of condescension, where my spirituality is attacked, my presumed associations are attacked, my character is attacked, etc. All I have done is point out that people liek Pahoran, Loran, Mola, wade and Schryver do not understand these documents well enough to have a meaningful debat

e.

Uhh...

I feel like if I engage, I don't come to this conclusion lightly, but the evidence is simply too overwhelming. If you say a comment about the Papyri is synonymous with a comment about the GAEL (mola), you simply do not understand this subject well enough. Is you say the Facsimiles have nothing to do with the KEP, you simply do not understand this subject well enough (wade). When you confuse the Sensen text with the Hypocephalus (Loran) you simply do not understand the subject well enough. When you say none of the GAEL characters appear on the Joseph Smith papyri (Schryver) you simply do not understand the documents well enough to be debating anyone. Now you may think these were typos or simple mistakes, but each and every one was delivered with bombastic certitude while attacking me for anti-Mormon bias in some way.

The early claim was that the Sensen text was the source of the Book of Abraham. You yourself just wrote:

See what I mean? It is just stunning that you aren't aware of the contents of the book you want to defend as divine. I'd love to be more charitable here, but your continued attacks on me make it very hard. Abr 1:12-16 explicitly references the depiction at the commencement of this record. This tells us that what is after this depicition is the record. The sensen text appears directly after the depicition found in Facsimile #1. The same image that appears in every published version of the Book of Abraham, showing the figure with a knife attempting to "sacrifice" a man Joseph Smith believed was Abraham.

Abr 1:12 "And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record."

I have asserted that the Sensen is not the source of the Book of Abraham. The hypocephalus, according to Joseph, was a part of the Book,of Abraham, so also could not be the source of it. It can then be understood as a reference and/or appendix to the Book of Abraham as written.

So if the best you can do is point to instances where I claim to know more than others, well I think I am doing fairly well by comparison to their condescension. I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I have buried myself in this topic since 2003 and I've seen little evidence that more than a few LDS defenders have a decent grasp of the subject. And why would they? They have FARMS articles to fall back on if they have concerns.

I rest my case.

Only a couple of people have bothered to do their own research on this subject and offer some original thought and analysis based on the available evidence. It gets tiring when the only people responding to you are responding in what appears to be a sense of apologetic duty. And they're clearly reading from some outdated apologetic article as they're typing up a response - as Loran does so frequently.

Loran has left yet another building for personal attack posts with no other content. Next time it will be the board instead of the thread.

[wenglund]

It is responses like these that make these discussions go no where. Too much complaining about the messenger, no substantive rebuttals to the message...

[delete remainder of lengthy and ironic compaint

Xander,

Could you please stop ironically complaining and provide a substantive answer to this:

Crucial to Schryver's thesis is the premise that since none of the counting characters were Egyptian, Joseph Smith never thought they were Egytian.

In relation to the Cipher Theory, here is Will's main point or "thesis": "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.” (Emphasis mine)

Since Will doesn't directly speak to whether Joseph thought the EC characters were Egyptian or not, could you please explain why you believe the premise you introduce above is critical to Will's "thesis"?

Also, to your way of thinking, would Joseph consider the following to be Egyptian characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 10, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

In relation to the Cipher Theory, here is Will's main point or "thesis": "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.” (Emphasis mine)

Since Will doesn't directly speak to whether Joseph thought the EC characters were Egyptian or not, could you please explain why you believe the premise you introduce above is critical to Will's "thesis"?

And this is the problem with trying to have discussions about this topic with you and most other people here. You simply do not understand Will Schryver's argument. I mean you're sitting there trying to tell me that Will doesn't say anything about the importance of the Egyptian Counting not being Egyptian, as far as his thesis is concerned. Let me help you here. What follows is the relevant portion of his presentation, word for word, and with his emphasis added.

What is most interesting, however, is that the characters in the Egyptian Counting document are very obviously not Egyptian! They have no relationship whatsoever to the papyri.

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”?

Well, the answer to that question is, in my judgment, the key to understanding the underlying motivations and design of both the Egyptian Counting document AND the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

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.”

So according to Will, despite the claims made from within these documents, Egyptian doesn't really mean Egyptian and Translation doesn't really mean Translation. Upon accepting these two propositions, only then can we understand the "key" to unlocking the mystery that is the KEP. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp his argument?

According to Will, those involved in the GAEL just used the word "translation" because that is what they "would have called" something that was really just a cipher. What is his evidence for this? Nothing. It is just what he needs to be true, so he just throws it out there as if we're supposed to just take it for granted. Same thing with his ludicrous assertion that Egyptian didn't mean Egyptian, and that this project was nothing more than an attempt to, for whatever weird reason, encrypt Joseph Smith's revelations (he had been showing off and intended to publish anyway!) using symbols believed "to be typical of language as practiced" by a vague, nonspecific group of people he refers to as “the ancients.” And his evidence for this? Nothing. And after his presentation he defended it by saying that none of the symbols in the GAEL relate to the Egyptian Sensen text, which of course we know too be hilariously wrong, as the first three symbols are an exact match and a dozen more symbols are taken from the Egyptian Facsimile. This is why Will focuses primarily on only 2% of the KEP, so he can say "lookie, these characters aren't really Egyptian." Well, duh! That's because this is the section dealing with numbers and he had no way of knowing what would constitute legitimate numeric symbols in Egyptian. He was just making stuff up as usual. But anyone familiar with the KEP as a whole knew Will was just blowing smoke, because references to legitimate Egyptian symbols and even the Joseph Smith Papyri, were littered throughout the documents. So for this reason alone the counting documents had to be the "key" to understanding the meaning of the project.

Suffice it to say, if the Egyptian was understood to be Egyptian, his thesis crumbles from the inside out since he can no longer claim this is the "key to understanding" the project. Likewise, if they were engaged in translations, which is what the documents purport to be, then his thesis crumbles from the inside as well. So Will resolves these problems via a show of smoke and mirrors. He managed to convince those who were there to accept whatever he had to say uncritically, that he could with a wave of his magic wand, make these two points become truth via assertion.

And now a year later you still don't seem to understand what it was Will argued.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

I should also point out another reason why it is important for Schryver to argue this way. We have indisputable evidence connecting Joseph Smith to the GAEL. This was his baby. He worked on this. Data was "unfolded" to him during the process. It was based strictly on revelation. So there is really no room for error here. Apologists can quibble for years about the possible meanings behind the images he translated in the facsimiles, but how do they overcome clear attempts to translate the Egyptian numbering system? Is there really any debate among Egyptologists as to whether 4 represents the number 4 in Egyptian? Of course not.

Therefore, for apologetic purposes, these numbers must not correspond to purported Egyptian translations. They could not have been an attempt to decipher Egyptian or produce a lexicon of the Egyptian language. Why? Because this would essentially prove Joseph Smith couldn't translate ancient languages, which is a crucial and fundamental truth claim of the Church.

Thanks to Don's recent work, we have even further evidence that Joseph Smith viewed the GAEL as a lexicon that could be used to translate the Egyptian language.

Schryver's thesis no longer has a leg to stand on, and it is interesting how Schryver two most loyal supporters have failed to grasp what he argued.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

And this is the problem with trying to have discussions about this topic with you and most other people here. You simply do not understand Will Schryver's argument. I mean you're sitting there trying to tell me that Will doesn't say anything about the importance of the Egyptian Counting not being Egyptian, as far as his thesis is concerned.

Let me help you here. What follows is the relevant portion of his presentation, word for word, and with his emphasis added.

So according to Will, despite the claims made from within these documents, Egyptian doesn't really mean Egyptian and Translation doesn't really mean Translation. Upon accepting these two propositions, only then can we understand the "key" to unlocking the mystery that is the KEP. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp his argument?

According to Will, those involved in the GAEL just used the word "translation" because that is what they "would have called" something that was really just a cipher. What is his evidence for this? Nothing. It is just what he needs to be true, so he just throws it out there as if we're supposed to just take it for granted. Same thing with his ludicrous assertion that Egyptian didn't mean Egyptian, and that this project was nothing more than an attempt to, for whatever weird reason, encrypt Joseph Smith's revelations (he had been showing off and intended to publish anyway!) using symbols believed "to be typical of language as practiced" by a vague, nonspecific group of people he refers to as “the ancients.” And his evidence for this? Nothing. And after his presentation he defended it by saying that none of the symbols in the GAEL relate to the Egyptian Sensen text, which of course we know too be hilariously wrong, as the first three symbols are an exact match and a dozen more symbols are taken from the Egyptian Facsimile. This is why Will focuses primarily on only 2% of the KEP, so he can say "lookie, these characters aren't really Egyptian." Well, duh! That's because this is the section dealing with numbers and he had no way of knowing what would constitute legitimate numeric symbols in Egyptian. He was just making stuff up as usual. But anyone familiar with the KEP as a whole knew Will was just blowing smoke, because references to legitimate Egyptian symbols and even the Joseph Smith Papyri, were littered throughout the documents. So for this reason alone the counting documents had to be the "key" to understanding the meaning of the project.

Suffice it to say, if the Egyptian was understood to be Egyptian, his thesis crumbles from the inside out since he can no longer claim this is the "key to understanding" the project. Likewise, if they were engaged in translations, which is what the documents purport to be, then his thesis crumbles from the inside as well. So Will resolves these problems via a show of smoke and mirrors. He managed to convince those who were there to accept whatever he had to say uncritically, that he could with a wave of his magic wand, make these two points become truth via assertion.

And now a year later you still don't seem to understand what it was Will argued.

xander,

I am sorry. I made a gallant effort to charitably sifted through your incoherent rant to see if I could find an answer to my first simple and straightforward question. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. Oh well, maybe that is my fault.

Be that as it may, could you please answer my second question? (If you would fore-go the verbose clutter of self-serving caricatures and tangential sneers, it would be appreciated):

To your way of thinking, would Joseph consider the following to be Egyptian characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2011 by wenglund

[Chris Smith]

To your way of thinking, would Joseph consider the following to be Egyptian characters:

Is there any reason to think he wouldn't have?

[wenglund]

Is there any reason to think he wouldn't have?

Yes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Yes.

Care to elaborate?

(I'm especially interested to hear your theory about why these symbols appear in a document titled "Egyptian Counting" if Joseph Smith didn't think they were Egyptian.)

[wenglund]

Care to elaborate?

I don't wish to spoil the fun I am about to have with Kevin (assuming he answers my question).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

I don't wish to spoil the fun I am about to have with Kevin (assuming he answers my question).

I'll happily answer your question, and you can have your fun with me.

Yes, Joseph would have considered those characters Egyptian. This is the clear implication of the document's title.

[wenglund]

I'll happily answer your question, and you can have your fun with me.

Yes, Joseph would have considered those characters Egyptian. This is the clear implication of the document's title.

I appreciate you answering. However, the reason I am waiting for Kevin is because it speaks to an argument he made earlier in the thread. If he doesn't respond, then I will respond to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-