The Cipher Theory

[Xander]

It is important to point out that William Schryver committed himself to this notion that the entire KEP can be understood via a proper understanding of the two pages called the "Egyptian Counting" document. He claims there has been "no explanation" proposed for this document, and so he goes to great lengths to "explain" it for us. I've been told that the critics have never provided an explanation, therefore Schryver's is the first. However, the explanation for this document is found in the document itself; the critics just never felt the need to argue otherwise..

The Egyptian Counting document was intended to be... (drum roll)... an Egyptian Counting document.

Mystery solved.

The best way to approach this is by allowing the document to define itself. There is no need to complicate it further with superfluous brain-storms.

To those familiar with these documents, it is quite obvious what this particular document was intended to be. But Schryver claims it is something else entirely; a cipher key which he asserts to supports his thesis that these men were engaged in an enciphering project, and not literal translations. Will is privileged in that he has been granted access to images of the documents, and he shares a few of them in his presentation. However his commentary accompanying the images is riddled with errors and baseless assumptions that are essential to his conclusion.

First and foremost,

Assertion #1:

William tells us that when the text refers to Egyptian, it doesn't really mean to be referring to the Egyptian language (despite the fact that the "EL" in the acronym GAEL refers to "Egyptian Language," as the first page identifies itself). But his only evidence for this is the fact that none of the characters are genuine Egyptian characters. This is what we call a circular argument. He begins with the premise that these men would only believe real Egyptian characters were really Egyptian, and so he proceeds to argue in a circle that since these were not really Egyptian, then they never believed they were. So it is important that Schryver establish the premise that these men never really believed these Egyptian characters were Egyptian. Unfortunately, he never even tries to establish this. Instead, he asserts that it is true and leaves it at that.

Assertion #2:

According to William, this wasn't a "translation" at all, despite the fact that the document claims to contain Egyptian characters along with an English "explanation." William tells his audience that we should dispense with this description and call the English explanation a "substitute value." Presumably because that makes it sound more like a cipher.

Assertion #3:

He then says that these men would not have called a cipher a cipher, but instead they would have called it a "translation." This is how he accounts for the word "translation" being used, by claiming these men used it to mean the exact opposite ("Decipher" is synonymous with translate, but "encipher," as Will proposes was their purpose, is the opposite). So the argument here seeks to turn this document on its head by making it say the exact opposite of what it is.

So in this short two page document, William manages to rid himself of three crucial pieces of evidence with no justification. His argument's underlying premise requires that Egyptian must not really mean Egyptian, translation really means the opposite of translation, and explanation really refers to a cipher-like "substitute value." Without all three of these assumptions, his entire argument collapses. So the million dollar question is simple. Does William justify these assumptions with evidence? The answer is no.

But let's delve deeper into this so we can see further why Will's proposed explanation is not reasonable, and contrary to his repeated claim, has no explanatory power.

The document contains the numbers 1-79 represented by mysterious characters along with their English names. To me - and I speak with experience teaching languages - this document has all the symptoms of a translated numbering system from one language to another. Something similar to this can be found in just about any Grammar book on any language. That this is what they were trying to do is further demonstrated by the manner in which these English explanations were represented.

For example, why would a couple of characters be said to mean "Twice ten and two is twenty-two"? If it were merely a cipher as William asserts, then we'd begin with a coherent English concept and encrypt it into a symbol. We wouldn't begin with a symbol and extract from it redundant or ambiguous English phrases. In this case, there would be no reason to represent the number 22 with a phrase of seven words. One would simply say "twenty-two" or more to the point, "22," But Joseph Smith felt the need to spell out the literal translation.

Moreover, the way in which these men rendered these Egyptian numbers in English tells us everything we need to know about what they thought they were doing, because this looks just like a typical 'word for word" translation from one language to another. A perfect example of this can be demonstrated in basic translations of Portuguese numbers. For instance, the number nineteen is represented in the Portuguese language as "dezenove." Literally translated it says "ten (dez) and (e) nine (nove)." This is very similar to the literal translation that appears in the Egyptian document, "Twice ten and two is twenty-two". So there should be no question that this was intended to be an Egyptian numbering system translated for English readers. I've taught this to literally hundreds of students, so when I read the Egyptian Counting document this jumped out at me and I knew exactly what this was trying to say.

Will asserts, with no evidence, that none of these men really believed the symbols they used had any relationship to genuine Egyptian. This is easily refuted, and as I explained to Will and his defenders a year ago, many of the characters used to represent the Egyptian numbers can be found on the Anthon Transcript, which is a document containing characters that were derived from the "Gold Plates" written in "Reformed Egyptian." Here are a sample of the characters found on the Egyptian Counting document, alongside the Anthon transcript:

Obviously, many of these characters preexisted this project, and it is worth noting that several Masonic cipher symbols bear strong resemblance to a number of the characters found in the Anthon transcript. So despite the fact that many of these symbols derive from the "reformed Egyptian," William asserts that there is absolutely no reason to believe these men thought these characters had anything to do with the Egyptian language. I mean the fact that they called them Egyptian, and the fact that some of them were clearly present on a document containing "reformed" Egyptian, makes this a dubious claim.

Further evidence against Will's assertion can be found in Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile #2, which appear in the GAEL and are to some extent, dependent on the Egyptian Counting document. You see, Will does a good job of showing flashy images and complicating a rather simple document, but what he never does is test the proposed english explanations with other examples in which these Egyptian numbers were used. This is because he rejects out of hand the obvious fact that this was believed to be a literal translation from Egyptian to English.

The Egyptian number one is called "eh" in the Egyptian Counting document. Phrases pulled from the GAEL reveal that this same "eh" is used to denote the meaning of one, first or beginning. The same is true for the Egyptian number "veh" which means five. The former LDS apologist Paul Osborne, provided an online article explaining how these words consistently correspond to their assigned translations.

But the real coffin nail here is the fact that Facsimile #2 was worked on in the GAEL, and the translation produced is now canonized alongside the Book of Abraham.

From Joseph Smith's explanation of Figure 1:

Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Notice that Joseph Smith mentions "Jah-oh-eh" and explains what it meant to the Egyptian people. This term is found in the GAEL with an accompanying symbol. This proves three points that effectively dismiss Schryver's thesis:

1. The Facsimile explanations produced by Joseph Smith, not W.W. Phelps, use a word derived from the GAEL. There is nothing in LDS history or canon to suggest the source for the Facsimile explanations was W.W. Phelps. The Facsimile explanations also refer to GAEL terms, "Kolob" and "Floees," along with their corresponding definitions. The latter appearing in Cowdery's Alphabet document, but not in Phelps's.

2. This word along with the corresponding definition establishes the critical argument regarding the meaning and purpose of the Egyptian Counting document. There is no evidence of enciphering. It was clearly used to decipher, to demonstrate a literal translation.

3. This word was understood to have been used, not by the "Ancients" (as William asserts blindly) but more specifically, the "Egyptians."

And yet William argues, without a shred of evidence of support, that those involved with this project never believed they were dealing with anything that had to do with the Egyptians or the Egyptian language. Will's thesis relies on a rejection of all three points listed and proved above.

So why in the world are they publishing something William claims was being enciphered?

The entire point to enciphering is to encrypt data. To keep it hidden. But Joseph Smith freely demonstrated these documents and their translations to whomever wanted to view them. Continued...

Edited December 4, 2011 by Xander

[Storm Rider]

You do seem proud of yourself; however, the tone in which you preen your "logic" before the world is so distasteful I could not care less what you say. The entire topic becomes of no interest to me in this type of discussion. Cheers to you and your mysterious congratulatory email compatriots.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Minos
Storm Rider has left the building

[Xander]

Will goes on to explain...

The point is that they were willing to use characters from all sorts of places. They knew perfectly well that they weren't Egyptian, but that didn't matter in light of what they were doing.

These are two huge assumptions for which there is absolutely no evidence. If what William says is true, 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! As George Miller showed in his recent paper, Freemasons believed these characters related to Egyptian and Joseph Smith was a Mason who knew this all too well. He tells us,

As a Master Mason who has studied this period in depth, I can assure you that from about 1790-1870 Freemasons almost universally thought their symbols, which they often referred to as hieroglyphics, were ancient. It was also a common Masonic idea that the languages of Europe came from Egypt. I find it completely in keeping with a man whose uncles, father, and brother were Masons to have picked up this concept from his family.

And this also serves to refute Will's theory that W.W. Phelps was the man running this project, because he was a staunch anti-Mason. As if Phelps, the anti-Mason, would have ever believed the Masons had been preserving symbols from Ancient Egypt or anything having to do with the "pure language of Adam." Surely he was cognizant of the fact that many the symbols in his letter were Masonic, so why would he, as an anti-Mason incorporate them into what William assumed to be his project which, as William explained, was intended to be a cipher. But the point here is that a truly "random" selection of characters, as Will says took place, would surely contain some characters which could never be confused with those of ancient origin. But we don't see that at all. Instead, we see a conscious effort to produce an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, including the counting system. Kinda like what the project says of itself. That none of these number symbols appear on the papyrus is a point constantly raised by William, but this is understandable since the papyri were never meant to be a treatise in Egyptian mathematics. Therefore, we'd expect to see mathematical symbols divined via revelation, not taken from the papyri. Everything we see dovetails nicely with the critical stance, but raised huge problems and questions for William's proposed explanation.

Further, a quick examination of the document's contents quickly refutes William's thesis. Because if William is correct, then these guys were trying to "encipher" the numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 with symbols that looked almost exactly like 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8! This of course is strong evidence against his explanation for the documents, as the purpose of a cipher is to encrypt data, not leave it open in plain sight. I mean who were they hoping to fool by encrypting the number five with a symbol that has an uncanny resemblance to the number 5!?!? The same goes for the other four numbers. This makes no sense.

So how do the critics account for this evidence? Well this critic sees no problem with it because Joseph Smith clearly believed the Egyptian numbers bore some resemblance to the Arabic numerals. Before you say that's just nuts, consider the fact that he also believed the original Adamic language was very similar to modern English. This was illustrated clearly in his 1832 revelation; the "sample" of the Pure Language. Remember, his translation of the "pure language" revealed that the words Angels, Son and man are practically identical to modern English. So why would he have a problem believing a much younger language like Egyptian, also shared similarities with a modern numbering system?

William focuses on Phelp's letter and points out the differences it has with Joseph Smith's prior revelation of the "pure language" sample, but he doesn't address the similarities that would lead a reasonable person to conclude Joseph Smith was the source behind both documents. For example, he asks why the two contain two entirely different explanations and sounds. Well, the fact is William is incorrect. The explanations are thematically connected. So for example, Anglos is not "entirely different" from Angles. They both refer to angels. The slight variation between the two translations is easily explained by the fact that in Phelps' letter, he was sharing a translation of these symbols as they were understood by Adam who spoke the "pure language," and in the Egyptian Alphabet, he was explaining how these symbols were understood by the Egyptians. Mystery solved. But since William rejects out of hand the fundamental premise that we're dealing with translated languages (and that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was intended to create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar!) he's able to open the door to a convoluted theory about a cipher.

But Will's response becomes even more problematic when he starts to question the obvious similarities between the characters in the Anthon transcript and the Egyptian counting. He briefly responded to my argument in a forum where I couldn't respond, and said:

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),

Take a look at this folks. According to William, my examples aren't identical but his are? So the character representing the number 9 in the Egyptian Counting is "identical" to the Sanskrit character for the number 9. Now you tell me if this:

... is identical to this:

The sanskrit version creates the image in one stroke leaving the leg at a sharp angle. Similar, but hardly "identical." 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:

Will is essentially illustrating the subjective nature of his entire thesis. 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 dismiss a counterargument, will be perceived accordingly. This was never as apparent as in Will's claim that this character:

... had only a "partial" resemblance to this Anthon character -

... but was "identical" to this templar character with a tail dangling at the end-

The list of Sanskrit and Templar ciphers Will alludes to is found in this chart.

[Xander]

I should also point out that I have been accused of misrepresenting William's argument. I have been told that by focusing on his cipher argument, I've been focusing on the "wrong" part of his presentation. Well, I have been focusing on the cipher because that is what William presented as the "meaning and purpose of the KEP." I suppose I should also note that William has dropped his original claim regarding the meaning and purpose of the KEP. Recently he informed us:

I don't believe they were attempting to craft an actual cipher.

And of course this is in stark contrast to what he repeatedly explained in his presentation, which strangely enough, he continues to advertise in numerous threads without deleting the cipher segment.

From his presentation:

...the most instructive two pages of the entire collection of documents known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: the Egyptian Counting document."

Why is this document so instructive? Because it, more clearly than all the others, demonstrates the fundamental purpose of the project of which it is an integral part.

(emphasis mine, however the word "purpose" is emphasized in his text version)

As I pondered the ramifications of these facts, the conclusion became obvious to me: what we have here is a tool not intended to decipher Egyptian, but rather one intended to encipher the descriptive English text of the cardinal numbers!

It constitutes a specimen of what is known in cryptography as a “cipher key.” The characters, which are not Egyptian and which do not come from the papyri, are intended to be a cipher representing the English words in the “explanations” column,

In his text version, the emphasis in the first comment exists as shown above. It is also worth pointing out the manner in which William speaks these words with such intensity as he builds up the suspense before dropping the cipher bomb on us. The point here is that William gave us every reason to believe this cipher theory of his was what told us the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP.

Later on he hits on this point again:

...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.”

My point here is that I have not misrepresented William's presentation. A year ago he proposed to explain to the world what the "meaning and purpose of the KEP were," and I am addressing that claim and dealing with the evidence he presented to support it. I'm showing that his original theory has morphed into something along the lines of what the critics have been arguing all along. The fact that he no longer stands by his original thesis is irrelevant, and it is worth refuting because he still advertises his original presentation as though it were based on established facts and scholarly analysis.

[Mariner]

You do seem proud of yourself; however, the tone in which you preen your "logic" before the world is so distasteful I could not care less what you say. The entire topic becomes of no interest to me in this type of discussion. Cheers to you and your mysterious congratulatory email compatriots.

It is interesting that when an evidence-supported logical argument is presented in an OP that is deemed to be not faith promoting, the response from the faithful is to put "logic" in quotes, declare the entire argument to be distasteful because of the perceived tone of the presentation, and then completely ignore it.

On the other hand, when a faith promoting assertion is made, as in the OP about The Nahom-Bountiful/Nehem-Wadi Sayq Complex, the utter lack of supporting evidence and the contortions in history and logic presented (elsewhere) in an attempt to make the proposed narrative internally consistent (let alone reflective of any reality) are embraced and praised by the faithful seemingly without question.

As to the tone of the latter argument, the OP consisted of two single words (Nahom and Bountiful) that were links to other sites, and nothing more.

The latter two word OP, and the subsequent response to it by the faithful, sort of brought the work Ivan Pavlov to mind, but then that is probably just me.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Minos
Mariner has left the building

[Peppermint Patty]

Thank you Mr. Xander for your hard work and research. I find the history of the BoA fascinating. I wish the general membership of the Church took more of an interest in it.

Your position makes the most logical sense, in my opinon. Also, I believe that your position is the same position that has been traditionally held by the majority of LDS, its leaders and scholars.

I am still confused as to why this position is now being attacked by a couple of posters as being incorrect.

Thanks again.

[Brade]

Thank you Mr. Xander for your hard work and research. I find the history of the BoA fascinating. I wish the general membership of the Church took more of an interest in it.

Your position makes the most logical sense, in my opinon. Also, I believe that your position is the same position that has been traditionally held by the majority of LDS, its leaders and scholars.

I am still confused as to why this position is now being attacked by a couple of posters as being incorrect.

Thanks again.

Honestly, I don't see why believers don't just grant everything Kevin says and respond, consistent with the teachings of prophets in the Book of Mormon and latter-day prophets, that God, via the Holy Ghost, is the ultimate source of truth on religious matters such as these where God demands faith. Sure, the evidence looks bad, or isn't compelling one way or another, but no matter how the Book of Abraham came about, through revelation one can know that it is a revelation from God and it teaches important truths about life, God, and the universe. Done.

[Xander]

Honestly, I don't see why believers don't just grant everything Kevin says and respond, consistent with the teachings of prophets in the Book of Mormon and latter-day prophets, that God, via the Holy Ghost, is the ultimate source of truth on religious matters such as these where God demands faith. Sure, the evidence looks bad, or isn't compelling one way or another, but no matter how the Book of Abraham came about, through revelation one can know that it is a revelation from God and it teaches important truths about life, God, and the universe. Done.

Good question Brade. In fact, I have asked this a number of times. I am good friends with a number of LDS folks who take that position, and they never get an argument from me. If you want to believe God is behind this thing, despite the evidence, then more power to you.

Just don't tell me I am being unreasonable for refusing to follow along. The problem is when people want to claim Mormon truth claims are reasonable, scientific, based on evidence, etc etc. When in fact, what it really boils down to is a choice to believe based on faith alone. For me, there is no good reason to believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient documents. Tell me to pray about it if you want, just don't sit there and give me a long list of apologetic arguments designed to show that he really could translate ancient documents. Obviously, Gee and company believe Joseph Smith really did take an Egyptian text and properly translated it to produce the Book of Abraham. They're not content to go by "faith alone."

And by the way, I believe the Mormon concept of faith is incorrect. Faith was never meant to be a belief in something without evidence. Jesus performed miracles and others bore testimony of his miracles. That's evidence, and the reason he expected people to exercise faith. The Greek term pistis always referred to faith as loyalty based on evidence. I can't imagine a God who would expect people to believe things just because a Church says they should do so on "faith alone." Following that logic you can get people to believe just about anything. We can discuss this further if you want to start a thread about it. I'd like to keep this one focused on the faulty Cipher argument.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Xander

[Pahoran]

Honestly, I don't see why believers don't just grant everything Kevin says

Neither can Kevin. He's convinced that everything he says is automatically true.

And when discussing these subjects, he can't resist getting in a wearingly unending series of gratuitous little back-handed digs at his ideological opponents/targets. In fact, it is not clear that the real purpose of the OP is to refute an argument; rather, it appears to be focused on telling everyone how egregiously silly Will Schryver is to presume to hold any opinion that differs from that held by Kevin the Great.

But you can take comfort in the knowledge that, because you share his contempt for believing Latter-day Saints, that makes you, too, one of the truly superior beings here. Without any extraordinary talent or achievements, you are superior to all of us simply by virtue of your condescending attitude.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 4, 2011 by Minos
Pahoran has left the building

[Xander]

Neither can Kevin. He's convinced that everything he says is automatically true.

Typical. I figured you'd have to jump in sooner or later. I was hoping later. I think William is a big boy and should be able to defend his own arguments without help from the peanut gallery.

And when discussing these subjects, he can't resist getting in a wearingly unending series of gratuitous little back-handed digs at his ideological opponents/targets.

I've done nothing but respond to the argument. He has boasted for a year now that no one has responded. There is nothing in my recent posts that I didn't argue a year ago. He threw down a gauntlet a month ago daring anyone, particularly Chris Smith, to refute his thesis. Now that I have, you want to attack me personally and anyone else who has anything of substance to add. Color me surprised.

Incidentally, your professed distaste for "back-handed digs" is rather ironic coming from you. But if you want to see an exhibition in gratuitous insult, then please feel free to check out the other threads where wade and William are constantly attacking Cobalt, Smith, me, and anyone who dares question their arguments.

In fact, it is not clear that the real purpose of the OP is to refute an argument; rather, it appears to be focused on telling everyone how egregiously silly Will Schryver is to presume to hold any opinion that differs from that held by Kevin the Great.

I present a counter argument to his argument. I support my argument with evidence and I explain why his doesn't hold water. If the logical conclusion left to you is that Schryver is just "egregiously silly," well then that isn't my fault. You can't force those words in my post, no matter how hard yo try.

But you can take comfort in the knowledge that, because you share his contempt for believing Latter-day Saints

This is false. I have a number of LDS friends who have recently emailed me, thanking me for my recent contributions to this topic (and no, Don Bradley isn't the only one). Quite simply, they're tired of William's argument reigning supreme in the minds of so many. It is really a bad argument that needs to be tossed.

Without any extraordinary talent or achievements, you are superior to all of us simply by virtue of your condescending attitude.

I'm fairly confident I've acheived more than most people, but what does this have to do with the fact that no one, Schryver included, has responded to my thorough refutation of his Cipher theory? The fact that you would have to talk about such things reveals desperation and weakness in your defense of your buddy. And yes, you're biased because you had wedded yourself to his argument before he even presented it. Speaking of which, a year ago you boasted that Schryver had told us what the meaning and purpose of the KEP. I asked you what that was, exactly. You never responded. Would you mind answering the question now? I'll try not to hold my breath.

Why are you responding in kind if you object? Your tone is improving but there are obviously very bad feelings and some patient fence building is required. All we can do is thread ban everyone who doesn't provide a lick of relevant content behind the insults. You will be next if you don't stay on topic.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Minos

[wenglund]

As Kevin suggests, let the document speak for itself. Can someone please point to where any or all of the characters and/or sounds on the Egyptian Counting Document may be found on the Egyptian papyrus that were in Joseph's possession?

Can anyone please point out a single legitimate Egyptian character or sound on the Egyptian Counting document?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 5, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Also, If Kevin or any of his supporters believes the Anthon Caracters to be the same kind of "Egyptian" as may be found in the KEP, then please be so kind as to translate the Anthon Caractrers for us using the KEP.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Can anyone please point out a single legitimate Egyptian character or sound on the Egyptian Counting document?

Obviously they are on the missing scrolls.;-)

(Couldn't resist the humor...)

[wenglund]

Obviously they are on the missing scrolls.;-)

(Couldn't resist the humor...)

Good one. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

As Kevin suggests, let the document speak for itself.

Then we agree that it is an Egyptian Counting document?

Because the document itself says nothing that would support Schryver's thesis that it is anything else; especially not an enciphering project dealing with some "ancient" language they just decided to call Egyptian for the heck of it.

Can someone please point to where any or all of the characters and/or sounds on the Egyptian Counting Document may be found on the Egyptian papyrus that were in Joseph's possession?

Wade is just repeating what Schryver said in his presentation without addressing my response. Yes, this has already been addressed. As I explained above (and feel free to look up and check for yourself): "That none of these number symbols appear on the papyrus is a point constantly raised by William, but this is understandable since the papyri were never meant to be a treatise in Egyptian mathematics. Therefore, we'd expect to see mathematical symbols divined via revelation, not taken from the papyri." This is something we know Joseph Smith did. When the papyri revealed lacunae, he restored the original characters. Therefore there should be nothing preventing him from restoring the Egyptian numbering system. The thing that boggles the mind is the idea that W.W. Phelps could or even thought he could do this (since he is supposed to be leading this project, according to Schryver). But it is not something we know W.W. Phelps had done. Schryver also seems to make much ado about the fact that the document is incomplete, pointing out how many characters lack an explanation and/or sound. This only suggests that they hadn't gotten around to finishing it. How does this in any way change the fact that we're still dealing with an Egyptian Counting document, and not a "cipher" of a "language as practiced by 'the ancients'"?

And does wade really want to use the same exact arguments Will presented in his presentation? The reason I ask is because Will was arguing for cipher a year ago, but he no longer believes this to be true.

Can anyone please point out a single legitimate Egyptian character or sound on the Egyptian Counting document?

This is another strange question asked by Schryver a year ago, which again, I addressed above. Whether these are legitimate Egyptian characters is irrelevant to the point that these men believed that they were. The first clue pointing to this is the fact that they called them Egyptian, and the definition of one of the numbers was explained by Joseph Smith to mean precisely what the document said, according to the Egyptian people.

Also, If Kevin or any of his supporters believes the Anthon Caracters to be the same kind of "Egyptian" as may be found in the KEP, then please be so kind as to translate the Anthon Caractrers for us using the KEP.

There is no reason to expect the Anthon transcript to contain the "same kind of Egyptian," nor is there any reason we should expect to be able to translate them "using the KEP." The first part I never said and the second part I never argued. This is yet another straw man.

As I explained above, the Anthon transcript contained "reformed" (not the "same kind") Egyptian characters that appeared on the Gold Plates. The point, which was made clear above, is that Schryver's assertion - that these men never thought these symbols had any relationship to a language practiced by the Egyptian people - is undermined by the overwhelming similarities between the two sets. It appears they had every reason to believe these were related to ancient Egyptian, especially if they had any knowledge of Freemasonry, which they did. A number of the Anthon characters also bear a striking resemblance to Masonic symbols. And this makes perfect sense in light of George Miller's research.

Wade is simply repeating the same irrelevant questions that Schryver asked himself in a lecture while arguing for something he no longer endorses. If wade wants to argue what Schryver has subsequently abandoned, then he should at least explain why any of these questions matter. I don't see how they pertain at all to the refutation of the Cipher theory.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Xander

[Skylla]

Keep personal shots out of this thread.

Skylla

[William Schryver]

Whether or not the “cipher theory” described by “Xander” above is “dead in the water” I cannot say. The “cipher theory” he describes is one of his own creation—one built of straw.

“Xander” is reliant upon the fact that very few readers have anything but the most superficial understanding of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. His peculiar brand of propaganda is received uncritically among his exmormon cohorts, while very few among the faithful LDS who predominate on this message board are able to understand what in the world he is talking about.

When I actually bother to address some of his particularly egregious displays of ignorance concerning the KEP (as exhibited in the thread of which this post was a part), “Xander” merely disappears for a few days, then reappears to start a new thread (or three) wherein he performs a massive copy/paste job of many-times-regurgitated material. After a few dozen paragraphs of incoherent argumentation punctuated by a few random images thrown in for color, he thumps his chest and declares victory once again.

It’s like a bad joke told over and over by a man who fails to realize that the punch line has no punch.

[ldsfaqs]

And by the way, I believe the Mormon concept of faith is incorrect. Faith was never meant to be a belief in something without evidence.

Wow.... It's really true that when someone becomes an anti-mormon, they lose completely what they once understood.

While I've known this for sometime, it still fascinates me, that it's done for even the most FUNDAMENTAL of LDS Doctrines.

For you to actually say this with a strait face as if it's the truth and fact is simply astounding to me.

You are confusing your "Atheistic" judgments of religion, with what mormonism actually teaches.

Mormonism teaches the exact opposite of your claim.

We have always taught that FAITH is the "evidence" of things not seen, but which are true.

Faith has NEVER been "blind" Faith in Mormonism. You are transferring your Atheist judgments of religion itself onto mormonism, and thus falsely representing mormonism. We have NEVER believed in "blind faith".

Jesus performed miracles and others bore testimony of his miracles. That's evidence, and the reason he expected people to exercise faith. The Greek term pistis always referred to faith as loyalty based on evidence. I can't imagine a God who would expect people to believe things just because a Church says they should do so on "faith alone." Following that logic you can get people to believe just about anything. We can discuss this further if you want to start a thread about it. I'd like to keep this one focused on the faulty Cipher argument.

Well, since the Church has never said we should believe anything based on "Faith alone", your statement is a strawman.

Mormonism teaches that we come to things "by STUDY and by FAITH"..... Faith has always been an "action" word in Mormonism.

Other religions tend to consider Faith more of a "belief", and thus can be considered a "little" more so closer to blind faith (but even that is actually false and just a common atheist lie), but mormonism certainly has not ever taught such a belief.

To all out there, he is a clear example of how anti-mormons pervert the truth, in order to attack it.

They attack the fantasy's of their own mind, not the reality of who mormons and the Church actually is.

[Areabird]

You're derailing the post. Start a new post on Faith instead.

[ldsfaqs]

I'm not "derailing" the "thread".... I've responded to a claim made in this thread by the original poster.

People are still free to talk about the original subject matter.

Thus, please get over yourself and leave people alone with your pettiness.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Minos
ldsfaqs has left the building

[Hestia]

You're derailing the post. Start a new post on Faith instead.

Per board guidelines on things not to do: Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

[wenglund]

Then we agree that it is an Egyptian Counting document?

We both agree that it is called "Egyptian."

Do we agree that the "Egyptian" that is in the Counting document, is not real "Egyptian"?

In other words, do we agree that the "Egyptian" found in the Counting document is not the "Egyptian" that may be found on ancient Egyptian papyri?

In short, do we agree that we are talking about two different "Egyptian" languages.

I ask because I am trying to sensibly draw an important and fundamental distinction in terminology in the hopes of dispelling some possible confusion on someone's part.

Once you evince that you have grasped the fundamental distinction between the "Egyptian" in the Counting document and the "Egyptian" that is on the papyri, we can then explore the possible distinction between the "Egyptian" in the Counting Document and the supposed reformed "Egyptian" in the Anthon Caracters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 6, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Whether or not the “cipher theory” described by “Xander” above is “dead in the water” I cannot say. The “cipher theory” he describes is one of his own creation—one built of straw.

Will, can you explain, then, what your current thinking is on whether the Egyptian Counting document represents a cipher? If you are backing away from that hypothesis, or if you claim never to have suggested it, then it would be helpful to understand what you are (now) claiming, and how it is different from what Xander portrays. Since you haven't yet published your ideas, all anyone has to go on is your FAIR presentation and your online Powerpoint presentation videos. That puts anyone reviewing your work at a disadvantage, because before things are set in stone via publication, they present a bit of a moving target.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will, can you explain, then, what your current thinking is on whether the Egyptian Counting document represents a cipher? If you are backing away from that hypothesis, or if you claim never to have suggested it, then it would be helpful to understand what you are (now) claiming, and how it is different from what Xander portrays. Since you haven't yet published your ideas, all anyone has to go on is your FAIR presentation and your online Powerpoint presentation videos. That puts anyone reviewing your work at a disadvantage, because before things are set in stone via publication, they present a bit of a moving target.

I think Will has been pretty clear. I suggest a review of his Fair address. I would also point out that Will's primary thesis has always been that the EAG/GAEL was dependent upon an existing text. And that the cipher theory, even if proven false, was always 2ndary and would not effect his primary thesis. I am also aware of no "moving targets" as you claim, Cobalt.

I find it funny that you think a publication would some how make things so much different then his presentation. I admit that there would be more material to cover in a publication but to pretend that Will is trying to pull a "okeydokey" on us is interesting.

[Cobalt-70]

Will asserts, with no evidence, that none of these men really believed the symbols they used had any relationship to genuine Egyptian. This is easily refuted, and as I explained to Will and his defenders a year ago, many of the characters used to represent the Egyptian numbers can be found on the Anthon Transcript, which is a document containing characters that were derived from the "Gold Plates" written in "Reformed Egyptian." Here are a sample of the characters found on the Egyptian Counting document, alongside the Anthon transcript:

Obviously, many of these characters preexisted this project, and it is worth noting that several Masonic cipher symbols bear strong resemblance to a number of the characters found in the Anthon transcript. So despite the fact that many of these symbols derive from the "reformed Egyptian," William asserts that there is absolutely no reason to believe these men thought these characters had anything to do with the Egyptian language. I mean the fact that they called them Egyptian, and the fact that some of them were clearly present on a document containing "reformed" Egyptian, makes this a dubious claim.

I'm not convinced that the characters from the "Egyptian Counting" document have any direct relationship with these figures on the Caractors document. The "4" is just that--an Arabic "4." The "5" is simply an Arabic "5," and does not quite match the Arabic "5" on the Caractors document, where the upper horizontal vertical line crosses the upper vertical line in the Caractors document, instead of the two lines joining in a "T." The character for 6 is just a cursive "E," not too unlike the cursive "E" of Smith's own handwriting. The "8" is just an Arabic "8." The Caractors document contained several Roman and Arabic figures other than just these four. That the Egyptian Counting document also uses Arabic and Roman figures doesn't mean that Smith referenced the Caractors document in producing the Egyptian Counting document. It just means that Arabic and Roman figures were within easy subconscious reach in both instances of Smith's purported transcriptions of Egyptian characters.