Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[wenglund]

In case Mortal Man may not have seen this, let me post it again:

You initially observe that the characters "are interspersed throughout [the GAEL], in groups defined by five “parts” and five “degrees” but you never connect "parts" to the hieroglyphic columns on pJS 1.1. Then you go on to say: I have put the (the most) problematic statement in red. The characters are never divided into "parts" in the EAG documents or the GAEL. Your cipher theory is founded on your erroneous belief that characters are divided into "parts" just as explanations are divided into "degrees". Furthermore, you state that the characters in question are from the "second part" of the "cipher key," when, in fact, they are from the "Second part of the Alphabet" on the papyrus! Had you noticed that these characters came from pJS 1.1, and that the "parts" in the EA/GAEL matched the columns of the papyrus "Alphabet" then you would never have made the embarrassing claim that the characters came from a Masonic cipher.

Let's see about that. Take for example the character with the sound of Zakionhish or Kulsidonhish. In the EA's it is listed in part 5; whereas, in the GAEL it is listed in part 1. In other words, this character is listed in two different parts. I looked on the papyrus register you marked with the number 5, and couldn't find it. Imagine that.

What makes this all the more complicated, is that the character with the sound Zakionhish is a composite character made up of dissected parts, the first of which is the character with the sound of Beth, which in the EA's is listed in part 2, though in the GAEL, it is listed in part 1.

So, here we have a composite character that is listed in part 5 of the EA's, but doesn't show up on the papyrus area you have marked as #5, and is listed in part 1 of the GAEL, and is comprised of a part that is listed in part 2 of the EA's, but doesn't appear on the papyrus area you have marked as #2, and which is also listed in part one of the GAEL.

Furthermore, this composite character from part 5 of the EA's, is also comprised of characters from part 1 (Iota and Zub Zool Oan), and part 2 (Beth Ku) in the EA's, with composite sounds (ki and ash) that aren't addressed individually until GAEL part 1.

Do you see where I am going with this (there are other characters with similar problems) and how it becomes problematic (embarrassing?) to what you are suggesting above?

And, if memory serves me correctly, there is at least one character that shows up in both part 1 and part 2 of the GAEL [The character has the sound BethKa], and it only shows up in part 2 of the EA's.

Also, as for the degrees, while each of the characters in all five parts in the EA's were addressed in the first degree, in the GAEL the characters in part 1 were each addressed in all five degrees, whereas in part 2, most of the characters were addressed in only one of the five degrees (Ahmeos d-1, Aleph d-2, Albeth d-3, Alkabeth d-4, Alkebeth d-5, Alkibeth d-1, Alkobeth d-2...)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 3, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

If these squiggles appeared under the heading "Middle Earth Cast of Characters," and there was a journal entry dated 1945 in which Tolkein wrote, "today I worked on my Middle Earth Cast of Characters," then yes, I would assume it predated the publication of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And so it would -- predate the publication of LOTR, even though the book was mostly written by then.

At last you seem to be getting the point!

It is quite common for authors to create intricate dossiers on their characters before weaving that material into a novel. That is basically what Smith was doing, except the "characters" were what he believed to be letters in an Egyptian alphabet.

That is the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon propaganda, yes.

No wonder you are peddling it so assiduously.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

That is the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon propaganda, yes.

No wonder you are peddling it so assiduously.

Check your dosimeter. No more than 3 rems per quarter.

Lehi

[William Schryver]

Let's see, now we have Gee's missing papyrus, Hauglid's missing translation manuscript, Ben McGuire's missing EAG exemplar, and now William's missing exemplar of the Katumin notebooks. If you believe all that, just wait till you hear about the missing Spalding manuscript!

This has nothing to do with a missing exemplar for the notebooks. Nothing of the sort entered into my mind. The anti-Mormon mind can be so extraordinarily narrow and constricted at times!

My only point is that we have a collection of documents, the provenance for each of which is not the same, and largely unknown. They were gathered together over a period of time. We don't know by whom. Some of them date to Kirtland, Ohio circa 1835-36. Some of them date to Nauvoo, Ilinois, circa 1842. It is a small collection of documents. We know for a fact that the collection is not comprehensive.

I have no problem with the possibility that the Truman Coe statement refers to the notebook in which Oliver Cowdery wrote down his snippet regarding Katumin. In fact, it's probably likely. My point was simply that Smith and his cohorts seem to always operate under the assumption that since we have some manuscripts that relate to the Egyptian material, then we must have all the manuscripts that relate to the Egyptian material.

I think reasonable people understand that such an assumption is unwarranted, and is, in fact, quite unlikely.

[William Schryver]

It is quite common for authors to create intricate dossiers on their characters before weaving that material into a novel. That is basically what Smith was doing, except the "characters" were what he believed to be letters in an Egyptian alphabet.

And thus Cobalt-70 utters forth the final word on this long-standing mystery!

Oh, my! When I read this statement this morning, I just burst out laughing. Well, inside I did. It's early and I didn't want to wake anyone, so it was a suppressed laugh.

But, oh my!

You know, in a way it's not really even funny, because I know very well that the vast majority of the evangelical apostates that are participating in and following this thread will read that statement and nod their heads approvingly, and catalog this theory away in their minds as the most likely explanation for the Egyptian Alphabet.

(Leaning back in their chairs.) "Mmmm ... yes, indeed. The EA/GAEL is the dossier of characters that Joseph Smith prepared in advance of writing the Book of Abraham. Yes, yes ... that explains everything!"

Never mind that there is no record of Joseph Smith, of all people, ever doing such a thing. He had, a little more than five years previous, recited, over the course of less than 90 days, a 500+ page Book of Mormon. But for the Book of Abraham, the printed text of which occupies all of 11 pages, he composed beforehand a dossier of characters, the total length of which is greater than the book it was supposedly being prepared to facilitate!

That's right, folks. The EA/GAEL contains significantly more words than the Book of Abraham itself.

And yet Cobalt-70 assures us that it was prepared as a “dossier of characters” for the smaller work that resulted from it.

Oh, and don’t forget that the EA/GAEL itself informs us how this “dossier of characters” is to be used in order to produce the Book of Abraham. There are a few pages dedicated to detailing the methodology to be employed. Here is one of them: Methodology - Fifth Degree

Got that?

Easy as pie, right?

Well, folks, circumstances have arisen that will compel me to leave off, for the time being, any further discussion of this “dossier of characters” theory of the EA/GAEL—although, believe me, I am loath to abandon the conversation right when it has, after so long, finally led us to what so clearly promises to be the definitive answer to the meaning and purpose of the EA/GAEL.

Fortunately, my participation in these discussions has now been rendered superfluous by these recent developments, therefore I will not feel as acutely the pain of my compelled (although hopefully not protracted) departure from the debate.

Edited to fix link to methodology page.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

Let's see about that. Take for example the character with the sound of Zakionhish or Kulsidonhish. In the EA's it is listed in part 5; whereas, in the GAEL it is listed in part 1. In other words, this character is listed in two different parts. I looked on the papyrus register you marked with the number 5, and couldn't find it. Imagine that.

They didn't have a Xerox machine.

What makes this all the more complicated, is that the character with the sound Zakionhish is a composite character made up of dissected parts, the first of which is the character with the sound of Beth, which in the EA's is listed in part 2, though in the GAEL, it is listed in part 1.

They dissected some of the characters as they went along. Chris posted a graphic of this on the other board.

So, here we have a composite character that is listed in part 5 of the EA's, but doesn't show up on the papyrus area you have marked as #5, and is listed in part 1 of the GAEL, and is comprised of a part that is listed in part 2 of the EA's, but doesn't appear on the papyrus area you have marked as #2, and which is also listed in part one of the GAEL.

Furthermore, this composite character from part 5 of the EA's, is also comprised of characters from part 1 (Iota and Zub Zool Oan), and part 2 (Beth Ku) in the EA's, with composite sounds (ki and ash) that aren't addressed individually until GAEL part 1.

Parts 1 and 5 have the most damage, so we'd expect them to have the most invented characters.

Do you see where I am going with this (there are other characters with similar problems) and how it becomes problematic (embarrassing?) to what you are suggesting above?

MM: "Most water on Earth is salty."

Wade: "The water in my bathtub is not salty."

Do you see where I'm going with this?

And, if memory serves me correctly, there is at least one character that shows up in both part 1 and part 2 of the GAEL [The character has the sound BethKa], and it only shows up in part 2 of the EA's.

Joseph didn't have a scanner either.

Also, as for the degrees, while each of the characters in all five parts in the EA's were addressed in the first degree, in the GAEL the characters in part 1 were each addressed in all five degrees, whereas in part 2, most of the characters were addressed in only one of the five degrees (Ahmeos d-1, Aleph d-2, Albeth d-3, Alkabeth d-4, Alkebeth d-5, Alkibeth d-1, Alkobeth d-2...)

This is not relevant to the point you were trying to make.

[William Schryver]

Parts 1 and 5 have the most damage, so we'd expect them to have the most invented characters.

I have a short break here, so I thought I'd pose a question to the inimitable Mortal Man:

In the reproduction of the lion couch vignette as Facimile 1 in the published Book of Abraham, why does it not contain the alleged "invented" characters from your proposed Part 1?

Oh, and you still haven't answered my previous question concerning the characters from the Phelps letter to his wife. Where would they be found on the papyrus? Where exactly would you fit them into Part 2? And how exactly did Phelps come to be using them weeks before the papyri rolled into town?

[wenglund]

They didn't have a Xerox machine.

They dissected some of the characters as they went along. Chris posted a graphic of this on the other board.

Parts 1 and 5 have the most damage, so we'd expect them to have the most invented characters.

MM: "Most water on Earth is salty."

Wade: "The water in my bathtub is not salty."

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Joseph didn't have a scanner either.

This is not relevant to the point you were trying to make.

Absolutely stunning! LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have a short break here, so I thought I'd pose a question to the inimitable Mortal Man:

In the reproduction of the lion couch vignette as Facimile 1 in the published Book of Abraham, why does it not contain the alleged "invented" characters from your proposed Part 1?

They didn't have xerox machines.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my previous question concerning the characters from the Phelps letter to his wife. Where would they be found on the papyrus? Where exactly would you fit them into Part 2? And how exactly did Phelps come to be using them weeks before the papyri rolled into town?

They didn't have scanners, and this doesn't relate to the point you are trying to make.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

d) Perhaps the best way to see just how infeasible it would be to use the EA/GAEL to decipher the papyri, let alone translate part or all of the BoA, is to challenge the reader, particularly those who believe the EA/GAEL was used tfor such purposes, to go through the EA/GAEL and decipher/translate the following section of one of the Joseph Smith papyri:

Let us know if you are unable to get anywhere and why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am just checking to see if anyone has anything to report on this as yet?

I am asking because the anticipated results may provide a great lead-in to argument #4: "There is evidence that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon preexisting texts, including, but not restricted to, portions of the Book of Abraham. Since portions of the Book of Abraham predate the EA/GAEL, then logically the EA/GAEL clearly weren't intended to produce the Book of Abraham [nor were they used to produce part or all of the Book of Abraham]."

Granted, Will has already got a jump on this question, but the lead-in will still be of help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Parts 1 and 5 have the most damage, so we'd expect them to have the most invented characters.

You really haven't thought this through very far, have you?

I mean, beyond identifying the columns from which they borrowed several characters (all but 4 of which were never used, in terms of providing them "sounds" and "explanations"), it's pretty clear to me you haven't really thought this through.

For example, how exactly are you going to deal with the first 20 or so characters in Part 2, as well as (at least) Jah-oh-heh and Flo-ees?

Or are you just counting on the fact that your apostate cohorts only require you to produce the mere semblance of knowing what you're talking about?

Oh, and remind me where the last two characters from Part 5 are alleged to be on the papyrus? Don't you argue that they are at the beginning of lines 4 and 5 of the Book of Breathings text on JSP XI?

[William Schryver]

I am just checking to see if anyone has anything to report on this as yet?

I am asking because the anticipated results may provide a great lead-in to argument #4: "There is evidence that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon preexisting texts, including, but not restricted to, portions of the Book of Abraham. Since portions of the Book of Abraham predate the EA/GAEL, then logically the EA/GAEL clearly weren't intended to produce the Book of Abraham [nor were they used to produce part or all of the Book of Abraham]."

Granted, Will has already got a jump on this question, but the lead-in will still be of help.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Part of the reason I posted the link to my transcription of the "methodology" for using the EA/GAEL is that those "instructions" on how it's to be used (as utterly incomprehensible as they are) really prove that the authors of EA/GAEL understood perfectly well that it wasn't intended to ever be used in relation to the papyri. Why? Because it speaks of the meaning of "horizontal lines" above and below a character, and describes how those lines modify the meaning of a character by indicating how many additional "parts of speech" must be added in order for the "full sense of the writer" to be conveyed.

Well, there is never an instance, on the papyri, of there being "horizontal lines" above or below a character! That simply doesn't happen on the papyri. Therefore, they must be speaking of something they would be doing that didn't have anything to do with the papyri. So, notwithstanding how incomprehensible and ridiculous the methodological instructions are, it is perfectly obvious that those instructions have nothing to do with translating Egyptian papyri, but are related to how a "writer" would use the EA/GAEL to author something with the aid of the EA/GAEL.

Check it out for yourself and think about the implications of what it is Phelps is saying, as nonsensical at it is: Fifth Degree Methodology.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

Well, there is never an instance, on the papyri, of there being "horizontal lines" above or below a character! That simply doesn't happen on the papyri. Therefore, they must be speaking of something they would be doing that didn't have anything to do with the papyri. So, notwithstanding how incomprehensible and ridiculous the methodological instructions are, it is perfectly obvious that those instructions have nothing to do with translating Egyptian papyri, but are related to how a "writer" would use the EA/GAEL to author something with the aid of the EA/GAEL.

[William Schryver]

Incidentally, I've mentioned this before, but I think this would be a good time to remind people of this fatal problem with the EA/GAEL: its own instructions (to I've posted a link above) say that a writer using it needs to be adding "parts of speech" to the meaning of any given character in order to "convey the full sense of the writer". Critics, including Chris Smith, have seized upon that statement as supporting the notion that Joseph Smith and his scribes believed a single Egyptian character could be translated into a full paragraph of English words. But they have seized upon what they think is the concept without reading all the way through what it is that Phelps actually wrote. You see, Phelps specifically identifies what "parts of speech" means in the context of his methodological instructions. "Parts of speech" are specifically defined as verbs, participles, prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs. Well, aside from the fact that %22particples"]"particples" are not technically one of the "parts of speech" (they are verb cases functioning as adjectives or adverbs), the following parts of speech are still excluded from Phelps's list: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and interjections.

Phelps's methodological instructions indicate that the meaning for any character in the EA/GAEL must be augmented by five of these parts of speech (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or interjections). If there is a horizontal line placed above the character, then the writer must add to its base meaning 5 x 5, or 25 "parts of speech". If there are two horizontal lines, the writer must add 5 x 25, or 125 "parts of speech"; three horizontal lines mean 5 x 125, or 625 "parts of speech".

Well, this is entirely impossible in the English language! Why? Because the ratio of verbs, participles, prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs to the other parts of speech is a little over 2 to 1! (I reached this figure by going through the text of the Book of Abraham and counting each word in its appropriate category.)

So even at the "base" level of 5 to 1, Phelps's system won't work. 25 to 1 or 125 to 1 or 625 to 1 would be perfectly ridiculous!

At any rate, this may not even be the most nonsensical aspect of Phelps's methodological instructions, but it's one that is easy to quantify. And, as you can see, the system simply cannot work. I can see why this speculative "project" was abandoned almost as soon as it was begun.

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Let's allow your supposed one example. Phelps violates his own rules. He doesn't add 25 additional parts of speech according to the rule. He merely uses the value of "25" in the meaning. That's not what the instructions say must be done.

It's all so ridiculous as to defy reason. As I explain above, the rules as defined cannot be followed.

ETA: Furthermore, the meaning of iota is "eye". Even in the context of the violation of his rule, Phelps should have said something about 25 eyes, not 25 women!

Again, the more you examine the methodological rules of the GAEL, the more you see how utterly ridiculous and unworkable they are.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

There is no such character on the papyrus.

I agree, actually. But the character in question nevertheless comes from a series of characters taken from the papyrus. It appears to be a "restoration" of a character missing due to damage. In other words, Smith and company apparently regarded it as having been anciently on the papyrus even though it was missing in modern times.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

I agree, actually. But the character in question nevertheless comes from a series of characters taken from the papyrus. It appears to be a "restoration" of a character missing due to damage. In other words, Smith and company apparently regarded it as having been anciently on the papyrus even though it was missing in modern times.

I edited my post to allow for your example. Please re-read it now.

[Cobalt-70]

And so it would -- predate the publication of LOTR, even though the book was mostly written by then.

Fine. Just go back then, in my argument and replace 1945 with 1937 or whatever. I knew that not being a Lord of the Rings geek would get me in trouble some day.

For the rest of your argument, I liked you better before you started to go all ad hominem.

[Chris Smith]

Phelps violates his own rules. He doesn't add 25 additional parts of speech according to the rule. He merely uses the value of "25" in the meaning. That's not what the instructions say must be done.

I agree that the instructions are absurd and unworkable, and were not strictly followed by Smith and company. This, however, has no bearing on whether they were intended or used for translation purposes.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

I agree, actually. But the character in question nevertheless comes from a series of characters taken from the papyrus. It appears to be a "restoration" of a character missing due to damage. In other words, Smith and company apparently regarded it as having been anciently on the papyrus even though it was missing in modern times.

I dispute that Joseph Smith had anything to do with formulating the methodological instructions for this would-be "translation device." You have no evidence to suggest that he did. Joseph Smith never wrote anything so nonsensical in his life!

Now Phelps, on the other hand ...

But the point I made in post 137 remains unaddressed. Other than the highly disputable example you demonstrate, there are clearly no instances of characters on the papyrus that have horizontal lines above or below them. That fact alone proves that this "lexicon" or whatever you want to call it, was not being designed to "translate" the papyrus! Why go to such trouble to describe this rule about horizontal lines above or below a character, knowing that such a condition does not exist on the papyrus? It can only mean that they designed it for something besides translating the papyrus.

[William Schryver]

Wow! That was weird. My post was duplicated in a quote box.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Pahoran]

I agree, actually. But the character in question nevertheless comes from a series of characters taken from the papyrus. It appears to be a "restoration" of a character missing due to damage. In other words, Smith and company apparently regarded it as having been anciently on the papyrus even though it was missing in modern times.

Once again, we see the unquestioned, apparently unthinking but certainly undemonstrated assumption that every word on the KEP's must be the direct product of Joseph Smith's mind.

Tell us, Chris: do you imagine that if you just keep repeatedly asserting or assuming it, it will eventually come to be accepted by default?

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

I agree that the instructions are absurd and unworkable, and were not strictly followed by Smith and company.

Again, I dispute your imputation that Joseph Smith had anything to do with it. But I also draw attention to the fact that these "methodological instructions" were not just "not strictly followed." They weren't followed at all! There is no indication anywhere else that these instructions factored into anything they did!

This, however, has no bearing on whether they were intended or used for translation purposes.

What could you possibly mean by this?

These "methodological instructions" clearly had no bearing on anything they did!

If you believe they did, please show us how.

[William Schryver]

Once again, we see the unquestioned, apparently unthinking but certainly undemonstrated assumption that every word on the KEP's must be the direct product of Joseph Smith's mind.

Tell us, Chris: do you imagine that if you just keep repeatedly asserting or assuming it, it will eventually come to be accepted by default?

Regards,

Pahoran

It is fascinating to me how, for Chris and his fellow anti-Mormons, the phrase "Smith and company" is utterly inviolate in relation to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers; it must form part of any reference to the KEP, despite the fact that the evidence for his involvement in the project is so scant after July 1835.

I simply note again that, to my knowledge, Joseph Smith NEVER authored nor dictated anything so utterly incomprehensible as are the methodological instructions from the GAEL, the link to which I have posted above. Every time I read that thing, my head does a 360.

Just for fun, you people should also read the shorter, but no less ridiculous rules given in the first degree and the second degree (there are none given in the third and fourth degree). Just make sure your heads are secured before you start!

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Wade,

Part of the reason I posted the link to my transcription of the "methodology" for using the EA/GAEL is that those "instructions" on how it's to be used (as utterly incomprehensible as they are) really prove that the authors of EA/GAEL understood perfectly well that it wasn't intended to ever be used in relation to the papyri. Why? Because it speaks of the meaning of "horizontal lines" above and below a character, and describes how those lines modify the meaning of a character by indicating how many additional "parts of speech" must be added in order for the "full sense of the writer" to be conveyed.

Well, there is never an instance, on the papyri, of there being "horizontal lines" above or below a character! That simply doesn't happen on the papyri. Therefore, they must be speaking of something they would be doing that didn't have anything to do with the papyri. So, notwithstanding how incomprehensible and ridiculous the methodological instructions are, it is perfectly obvious that those instructions have nothing to do with translating Egyptian papyri, but are related to how a "writer" would use the EA/GAEL to author something with the aid of the EA/GAEL.

Check it out for yourself and think about the implications of what it is Phelps is saying, as nonsensical at it is: Fifth Degree Methodology.

Exactly. The grammar evidently doesn't apply to existing texts, but rather in regards to how to write text in the future, and how to read those future text (note the future tense of the phrase "by inserting a straight mark"). It is the absence of those lines on the Abr. Mss. which first raised questions in my mind about the supposed dependency on the EA/GAEL.

However, you are spoiling all my fun. I was hoping that the critics would figure this out for themselves, along with other object lessons, by attempting my challenge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 3, 2011 by wenglund