Phelps As The Ea/Gael Project Leader?

[Senator]

I am sure he has some interesting things to present. I will look forward to what he has to add to the picture.

Really??

I thought you just said he "seems to be all hot air".

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I fully appreciate the allure of the Pacific Northwest. My first impression of Puget Sound convinced me that Joseph Smith was off in his placement of the Garden of Eden by a couple of thousand miles.

You can thank me for that. In the preexistence I was responsible for organizing the matter, and setting certain plate tectonics in motion to form that region of the world. At one point I suggested it to my elder brother as a perfect place for the Garden, but alas instead he preferred the flatland (he favors the "sea of glass" look). So, while Joseph was correct in what he said, I share your sentiment.

Let me know if you're ever in town and we can chat about all things BoAbr over lunch (my treat).

If or when I move up there, I am wondering if you have room in your basement where I can take up residence. And, if you could provide free wifi that would be nice. (Just kidding--I would be pleased to share lunch with you)

On your revisions to your initial posts, you still have a few critical details that are factually incorrect. Give me a day or so to reply (working again tonight)—I don't want to give your recasting short shrift. Kind regards, </brent>

Excellent. I look forward to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really??

I thought you just said he "seems to be all hot air".

I was mainly thinking of Metcalf and his book that has been in the works for years. Thanks for playing senator. Your posts are always so thoughtful.

[William Schryver]

On your revisions to your initial posts, you still have a few critical details that are factually incorrect. Give me a day or so to reply (working again tonight)—I don't want to give your recasting short shrift.

You always have been partial to low-hanging fruit.

Edited November 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[Brent Metcalfe]

Still working. No complaint, just fact.

I wrote...

On your revisions to your initial posts, you still have a few critical details that are factually incorrect. Give me a day or so to reply (working again tonight)—I don't want to give your recasting short shrift.

Hi William,

You replied...

You always have been partial to low-hanging fruit.

I don't consider Wade's points "low-hanging fruit." But since you do, please explain why (and be specific).

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

[Cobalt-70]

Well, for what it's worth, I am writing a book that covers this topic. I already have 300+ pages, including 100+ high-resolution images and a complete transcription of the text of the EA-GAEL. I expect the finished book to be 500+ pages. Part of its purpose will be to present the contents of the EA/GAEL in such a fashion that these manuscripts will be, for the first time ever, made accessible to a general audience. A significant proportion of the book will not be apologetic in nature, but will (I believe) constitute a valuable resource for anyone interested in these fascinating documents.

I am convinced that it will present overwhelming evidence supporting my primary thesis concerning the EA/GAEL: that they are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Do you have a publisher? Will it be published before Brian Hauglid's book? I'm just waiting for somebody to publish the secret high-resolution images.

[Cobalt-70]

All my publications that include copyrighted images are subject to approval by the Church History Department. I doubt that this book (and its many accompanying copyrighted images) will be approved for online publication.

Is the Church trying to claim copyright on EA-GAEL? Or are you talking about other images. If they are claiming copyright on the original 176-year-old EA-GAEL papers, that's a pretty dubious claim, so I doubt they would try it, although the church's IP lawyers are pretty aggressive. If they are claiming copyright on just the photos, then I don't think they can get a copyright for mere high-resolution photos. Taking a photograph of a document is a pretty mechanical process, and you can't usually claim a copyright for that.

[wenglund]

Since I am rather confident that neither Metcalfe, Smith, nor Graham will attempt to defend Metcalfe's argument that the second column of characters in EA-WP was copied from EA-JS, I will just go ahead and present evidence that strongly suggests the argument to be spurious. Of course, the argument was made in an attempt to discredit my developing thesis that William Phelps was the dominant force behind the EA/GAEL project. With that in mind, I invite readers to closely examine the images below. Is there persuasive evidence to suggest that the second column of characters from EA-WP (under the heading EA-WP_b) was copied from EA-JS?

Compare the GAEL* characters to those in EA-WP, EA-JS, and EA-OC. Note also the several variants presented by EA-JS and EA-OC, particularly at characters 32, 34, 35, and 36**.

Hi Will,

The juxtaposition of the six sets of character is very helpful and enlightening, and I believe convincingly makes your point.

There is one question that has nagged at me for some time: Why the two sets of characters in EA WWP Part 2, the first page? I would be interested to hear any explanations you may have in mind--that is, if it isn't divulging information you wish to reserve until later.

Also, is there any reasons that would preclude the first page of EA WWP (at least the characters and sounds, if not also the explanations, from having been written prior to July of 1835? The thought of it struck me earlier today.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Precisely. And this was discussed on this forum a couple of years ago. I remember Brent asking William Schryver to explain why Phelps' EA contained two columns of the same sequence of characters. After pretending to know, but refusing to answer, you finally answered the question and correctly pointed out that the characters in the right hand column were in Joseph Smith's handwriting - on Phelps' EA document. This clearly suggests that Phelps was relying on Smith, not vice-versa.

Still waiting for Graham to defend his argument ...

For Schryver or Wade to insist it was the anti-Mason, W.W. Phelps, who believed Adam used a Masonic code, is nothing short of ridiculous.

A prime example of how Graham relies on strawman constructions in order to "win" his debates. Has anyone ever suggested that "Adam used a Masonic code"? Of course not. But Graham assures it is ridiculous. I agree with him. I agree that it is "nothing short of ridiculous" to believe that Adam used a Masonic code.

[William Schryver]

Hey Kevin, what you wrote about the two columns of Phelps's EA isn't quite accurate. The two columns Brent posted on the thread you linked were actually from two separate documents. I don't know that we can conclude the right-hand column of Phelps's EA is in Smith's handwriting. Rather, Phelps in his right-hand column seems to be *copying* (and in his left column *modifying*) Smith's tilted script.

Still waiting for Smith to defend this argument (an argument that originates with Metcalfe, by the way) ...

[William Schryver]

/snip second evasionary post/

</brent>

Still waiting for Metcalfe to defend his argument ...

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

The juxtaposition of the six sets of character is very helpful and enlightening, and I believe convincingly makes your point.

That it does.

There is one question that has nagged at me for some time: Why the two sets of characters in EA WWP Part 2, the first page? I would be interested to hear any explanations you may have in mind--that is, if it isn't divulging information you wish to reserve until later.

I think your question is based at least somewhat on the assumption that Phelps always had a clearly defined purpose in everything he did vis-a-vis these documents. After scouring these manuscripts for almost two years now, I don't think that is an assumption I would make. It is, however, noteworthy that Phelps's EA document is the only one that attests a second column, and characters 24 - 36 are the only ones where anything is written in that second column. I think it is likely that the invention of all 13 of these characters pre-dates the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, and that the second column of characters is related somehow to an earlier document on which those characters appeared; that the characters appearing on the earlier Phelps letter represented only a selection of the "pure language" lexicon that was available at that time.

[Chris Smith]

Still waiting for Smith to defend this argument (an argument that originates with Metcalfe, by the way) ...

I explained my logic in the thread Kevin linked to. And no, the argument didn't originate with Brent except in the sense that he asked a question and I suggested a likely answer. (And also in the sense that all arguments advanced by nefarious anti-Mormons, no matter how apparently innocent, ultimately trace back to Brent Metcalfe the Father of All Evil.)

[wenglund]

I think your question is based at least somewhat on the assumption that Phelps always had a clearly defined purpose in everything he did vis-a-vis these documents. After scouring these manuscripts for almost two years now, I don't think that is an assumption I would make.

It wasn't so much an assumption as it was an idea I thought worthy to explore in an open-minded way (a scientific approach I somewhat picked up from you). Part of the reason I believe you have made so many breakthrough discoveries is because you have been willing to look beyond the conventional thinking, explore hitherto untested territory, and let the evidence take you where it may want to go. [thumbs up]

It is, however, noteworthy that Phelps's EA document is the only one that attests a second column, and characters 24 - 36 are the only ones where anything is written in that second column. I think it is likely that the invention of all 13 of these characters pre-dates the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, and that the second column of characters is related somehow to an earlier document on which those characters appeared; that the characters appearing on the earlier Phelps letter represented only a selection of the "pure language" lexicon that was available at that time.

Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I explained my logic in the thread Kevin linked to. And no, the argument didn't originate with Brent except in the sense that he asked a question and I suggested a likely answer. (And also in the sense that all arguments advanced by nefarious anti-Mormons, no matter how apparently innocent, ultimately trace back to Brent Metcalfe the Father of All Evil.)

So, am I to understand that you still stand by the argument that Phelps copied the second column of characters from Joseph Smith's EA document?

Really?

You know, normally the bluff ends when the opponent shows his four aces and you're still holding a pair of deuces.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, am I to understand that you still stand by the argument that Phelps copied the second column of characters from Joseph Smith's EA document?

Really?

You know, normally the bluff ends when the opponent shows his four aces and you're still holding a pair of deuces.

Yes, via assertion.

[wenglund]

It is, however, noteworthy that Phelps's EA document is the only one that attests a second column, and characters 24 - 36 are the only ones where anything is written in that second column. I think it is likely that the invention of all 13 of these characters pre-dates the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, and that the second column of characters is related somehow to an earlier document on which those characters appeared; that the characters appearing on the earlier Phelps letter represented only a selection of the "pure language" lexicon that was available at that time.

This (the bolded section above) isn't all that different from what I understand "George Miller" to be suggesting HERE: "You might be interested to hear that as an offshoot of the Masonic project has emerged my own analysis of the KEP, which pretty nicely shows that Joseph Smith derived each and every one of the Egyptian hieroglyphs in Part 2 of the KEP from the Hor Book of Breathing. Perhaps this will be next years MHA conference talk."

I asked him what he meant by "Part 2", and he replied: "I am speaking of the second part of the first degree as contained in the EA."

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

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

I attempted to clarify even further: "So, let me be a little more precise. Are you claiming that the same six character found in the Phelps letter sent the end of May of 1835, were also contained in the Hor BoB that arrived in Kirtland a month or so later?"

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

I can't exactly tell from this whether "Miller" believes that just the 6 characters, or the 13 characters, or all of the characters of Part 2, predate the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland, but it will be interesting to find out. I wish I had asked him how many of the characters and sound in Part 2 he believes were culled into a lexical table prior to July of 1835. Oh well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 30, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

/snip Q&A with "George Miller"/

I admit I am intrigued by the thesis that Miller purports to defend in his forthcoming article--not because I find it plausible, but because I am persuaded that it is entirely implausible. I do agree with Miller that Phelps, Cowdery, and Smith shared an idiosyncratic perspective on the relationship between "Adamic," or "pure language," and Egyptian. I have already argued that, in some ways, they considered them synonymous. It will be fascinating to see the angle Miller takes on this issue.

At any rate, I look forward to the presentation of his arguments with much curiosity. I already have partial drafts of reviews of Chris Smith's 2010 JWHA paper and Sam Brown's Joseph (Smith) in Egypt paper. It looks as though I may be bundling a review of Miller's forthcoming paper together with the other two in an MSR "triple play."

I do think that one can gain much insight into Miller's perspective (and thus a better understanding of how he plans to explain the seemingly inexplicable concerning the characters from the Phelps letter showing up in the Egyptian Alphabet) by reading this interesting post he made last night:

In response to this question:

The one question that kept running through my head in all of it was why would Joseph Smith Jr go to such great lengths to incorporate/expand on all the Masonic stuff if he thought himself a fraud? Do you believe he actually believed in both the Masonic legends and his own prophetic calling?

Miller responded:

That is a great question!!! It is my considered opinion that Joseph, like most Masons of his day, believed in the completely literal nature of the Masonic legends. It was not until the late 1900s that Masonic historians began doing serious historical into their origins and it became clear that Masonic history was inaccurate. To answer the first half of the question, my research strongly suggests that Joseph Smith actually believed the Masonic myths and that he was trying to restore what he believed was ancient Masonry.

In the process of researching Joseph Smith, I also did a substantial amount of research on the Smith family's magical beliefs. I actually read the main magical texts that the Smiths were likely reading. I then began to look into sociological literature about the nature and practices of believers in ritual magic. Additionally, I looked into scholastic literature about the biological nature of religious experience and the effects of religious ritual. After studying that, I returned to Joseph Smith's accounts and assessed his description of his own religious experience. Based on this research, it is my own personal opinion that Joseph Smith likely experienced the visions and revelation that he described. To answer the second half of your question, it is my academic opinion that Joseph Smith believed his own personal religious experiences and thus truly believed in his own prophetic calling.

It is up to each individual person to decide whether he believes this religious experience was given to Joseph from God, from biology, or if there is no real difference. That is my own take on things, take it for what it is worth, the opinion of another human being.

Link

The "pious fraud" conception of Joseph Smith is still alive and apparently evolving in new ways.

[William Schryver]

I also couldn't but notice this interesting speculation by the inimitable "Doctor" Scrotch, ideological spokesman for The Great and Spacious Trailer Park:

I heard it suggested that the most likely venue for a Schryver publication would be FAIR, even though, AFAIK, they don't publish actual books. Thus, Schryver's Book of Abraham "book" would represent the Maiden Voyage for FAIR as a "printing press."

I will be publishing nothing through FAIR. All of my work, both in the form of an extensive series of articles as well as the monograph EA/GAEL study, will be published by reputable academic presses. A significant amount of this work will be printed beginning in early 2012 and continuing throughout the year and into the next.

It amuses me to hear it speculated that I will never publish my research because I fear it will be destroyed by the formidable array of anti-Mormon critics, and I will thus be subjected to a severe public humiliation. I might note that I have, at every opportunity, directed readers to several high-quality presentations of my analysis to-date, available here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

I am still waiting to consider any substantive counter-arguments to what I have already presented. A few weeks ago, we were able to see just how hollow Chris Smith's alleged "counter-arguments" to my thesis proved to be.

In any case, back to Scratch:

After erroneously suggesting that "Nomad" and "Wheat" are my aliases, Scratch continues:

My suspicion is that Schryver's "book" will never see the light of day.

Along with all the rest of Scratch's "suspicions," this one will also prove ill-founded. Indeed, Scratch and his cohorts will be, I am certain, rather confounded when they finally learn who will be publishing my study of the Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

Edited November 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

Since I am rather confident that neither Metcalfe, Smith, nor Graham will attempt to defend Metcalfe's argument that the second column of characters in EA-WP was copied from EA-JS, I will just go ahead and present evidence that strongly suggests the argument to be spurious. Of course, the argument was made in an attempt to discredit my developing thesis that William Phelps was the dominant force behind the EA/GAEL project. With that in mind, I invite readers to closely examine the images below. Is there persuasive evidence to suggest that the second column of characters from EA-WP (under the heading EA-WP_b) was copied from EA-JS?

Compare the GAEL* characters to those in EA-WP, EA-JS, and EA-OC. Note also the several variants presented by EA-JS and EA-OC, particularly at characters 32, 34, 35, and 36**.

If one was copied from the other, then it would have to be from Smith to Phelps. Smith's characters contain details that Phelps omitted. When unfamiliar characters are copied, isn't it far more likely that details will be omitted, in an unconscious effort to simplify and streamline the character, than that they will be added?

Plus, if you compare the Smith characters with both the Cowdery and Phelps characters, you can see that Cowdery retains some of the Smith details omitted by Phelps.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

I admit I am intrigued by the thesis that Miller purports to defend in his forthcoming article--not because I find it plausible, but because I am persuaded that it is entirely implausible. I do agree with Miller that Phelps, Cowdery, and Smith shared an idiosyncratic perspective on the relationship between "Adamic," or "pure language," and Egyptian. I have already argued that, in some ways, they considered them synonymous. It will be fascinating to see the angle Miller takes on this issue.

At any rate, I look forward to the presentation of his arguments with much curiosity. I already have partial drafts of reviews of Chris Smith's 2010 JWHA paper and Sam Brown's Joseph (Smith) in Egypt paper. It looks as though I may be bundling a review of Miller's forthcoming paper together with the other two in an MSR "triple play."

I do think that one can gain much insight into Miller's perspective (and thus a better understanding of how he plans to explain the seemingly inexplicable concerning the characters from the Phelps letter showing up in the Egyptian Alphabet) by reading this interesting post he made last night:

In response to this question:

Miller responded:

The "pious fraud" conception of Joseph Smith is still alive and apparently evolving in new ways.

Sounds a bit to me like Fawn Brody meets Dan Vogel, and makes for a very creative way of maintaining unbelief. I, too, look forward to considering "Miller's" unique perspective, I very much enjoy being exposed to different perspectives, and this on the off chance that they might shed some edifying light on my own. I grew a lot from exploring Chris' JWHA article and the Cook/Smith discussion on scroll length, and I have mentioned this before, but were it not for Brent's efforts over the years, I would have missed out on a number of fascinating aspect of Kirtland history during 1835. I am excited to see where "Miller's" thoughts will take me.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[wenglund]

I also couldn't but notice this interesting speculation by the inimitable "Doctor" Scrotch, ideological spokesman for The Great and Spacious Trailer Park:

I will be publishing nothing through FAIR. All of my work, both in the form of an extensive series of articles as well as the monograph EA/GAEL study, will be published by reputable academic presses. A significant amount of this work will be printed beginning in early 2012 and continuing throughout the year and into the next.

It amuses me to hear it speculated that I will never publish my research because I fear it will be destroyed by the formidable array of anti-Mormon critics, and I will thus be subjected to a severe public humiliation. I might note that I have, at every opportunity, directed readers to several high-quality presentations of my analysis to-date, available here: The Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

I am still waiting to consider any substantive counter-arguments to what I have already presented. A few weeks ago, we were able to see just how hollow Chris Smith's alleged "counter-arguments" to my thesis proved to be.

In any case, back to Scratch:

After erroneously suggesting that "Nomad" and "Wheat" are my aliases, Scratch continues:

Along with all the rest of Scratch's "suspicions," this one will also prove ill-founded. Indeed, Scratch and his cohorts will be, I am certain, rather confounded when they finally learn who will be publishing my study of the Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

Scratch reminds me of certain fashion designers for women's clothing, who make outlandish dresses that in most every way defy common sense and good taste (like somethign Lady Gaga would wear), yet still elicit oohs and ah from their groupies. Funny stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If one was copied from the other, then it would have to be from Smith to Phelps. Smith's characters contain details that Phelps omitted. When unfamiliar characters are copied, isn't it far more likely that details will be omitted, in an unconscious effort to simplify and streamline the character, than that they will be added?

Plus, if you compare the Smith characters with both the Cowdery and Phelps characters, you can see that Cowdery retains some of the Smith details omitted by Phelps.

What you say might possibly make sense were this just about the three EA's. It isn't. Keep in mind that the Phelps letter (the Specimen) predates the EA's, and ask yourself if your "logic" holds up when comparing the Specimen characters to each of the EA's.

Once you realize it doesn't, then remember that the GAEL postdates the EA's, and ask yourself if your "logic" holds up when comparing the EA's to the GAEL characters as well. Since it doesn't in all cases, then evidently your "logic" doesn't work or apply in this case.

Now, compare all the characters (Phelps letter, EA WWP, EA JS, EA OC, and the GAEL) and see if you can pick up on a prevailing pattern across time (from the letter, to the EA's, to the GAEL), and let us know what you may discover.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 1, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Once you realize it doesn't, then remember that the GAEL postdates the EA's, and ask yourself if your "logic" holds up when comparing the EA's to the GAEL characters as well. Since it doesn't in all cases, then evidently your "logic" doesn't work or apply in this case.

Now, compare all the characters (Phelps letter, EA WWP, EA JS, EA OC, and the GAEL) and see if you can pick up on a prevailing pattern across time (from the letter, to the EA's, to the GAEL), and let us know what you may discover.

With regard to the Phelps letter, we can't really say much, because we are missing the original. Regardless of who wrote the original, it has been lost. Phelps copied the characters to his letter from some other source, otherwise, there would not be a retained copy to use later for the EA. So absent that original, there is not much we can say. But it would not be surprising that Phelps would interpret the original characters consistently across all his manuscripts, including the letter. What we can tell, though, is that Cowdery based his characters on the characters of Joseph Smith, rather than anything written by Phelps. Why would he do that, if Phelps' characters were considered to be the gold standard?

[William Schryver]

If one was copied from the other, then it would have to be from Smith to Phelps.

Edited December 1, 2011 by William Schryver