The Cipher Theory

[wenglund]

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.

When inventing a new "Egyptian" language, characters can workably be drawn from a variety of sources or invented at will. Such has been the case with the development of many languages, including shorthand--not the least of which is Tironian Notes (see Richard Stout's imaginative comparison of Tironian Notes and the Anthon Caracter).

As you point out to Kevin, it doesn't work so well when someone strains to shoehorn a comparison so as to prop up one's floundering theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 6, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

Hi William,

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.

Actually, it is built upon your own comments. I've provided every citation relating to your cipher theory and they come straight from your online video and transcript. I can assure you I didn't create them.

“Xander” is reliant upon the fact that very few readers have anything but the most superficial understanding of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

That's not a very nice thing to say about your intended audience.

Anyway, this thread is a focused response to your theory as it was presented last year at the FAIR conference. Meaning, one doesn't need a thorough understanding of the KEP to understand that the evidence I present undermines your numerous assertions.

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.

??

Can you or can you not, respond to the evidence I presented? If not, then just says so.

Or say nothing at all, and we'll get the point.

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.

This thread is not "part" of any previous thread; it is a thread dedicated to addressing your cipher theory, hence the title of the thread. It is essentially the same post I presented fifteen months ago on another forum, where you were participating at the time but chose not to respond. Once I presented my counter-argument you promptly migrated to a forum where I could not respond. During the past couple of months that I have been back on this forum, I have started at least four threads dedicated to addressing various arguments you have made and I don't recall you responding to any of the evidence in any of these posts.

There was this thread dedicated to your unexplained misrepresentation of the Book of Abraham manuscripts as well as your baseless assertion that there were "four" eye-witness account testifying to a "long" scroll. You didn't respond to that thread. Then there was this thread which thoroughly refuted your FAIR presentation which you gave on behalf of John Gee. You didn't respond to that thread. Then of course there was this thread discussing your cipher theory. You didn't respond to that thread. Finally, there was this thread discussing the missing scroll theory, which you briefly made an appearance, only to accuse me of "bluffing," but then disappeared again. So it is interesting that you would have the audacity to imply that I've been hiding from you.

Your response in the present thread is not much different than your pithy remark in the "Riddle Me This" thread. In both cases, your "response" is not really a response to the evidence and argument I present. It is just a poorly played attempt to bias your audience against me.

Care to try again?

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.

Well all I can say to that is that it is interesting that you and wade appear to be the only two people confused over my thorough responses to your various KEP related theories. Others seem to grasp it fairly well, so we know the problem has nothing to do my argument being "incoherent."

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

I think you should keep telling yourself that. In the meantime, do you want to explain your numerous errors listed above?

Thanks in advance.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Wade,

We both agree that it is called "Egyptian."

Yes, and it was called Egyptian because they believed it was Egyptian. That's the point and it is a point William rejects. His rejection of this is fundamental to his thesis.

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

Again, (and I've said this several times), the characters do not represent real Egyptian. But as I also said, this is irrelevant to the fact that they believed they did.

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?

I already said this too. Yes.

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

If you want to frame it that way, sure. We're dealing with real Egyptian characters that were borrowed from the papyri, and we're also dealing with "restored" characters which these men believed to be Egyptian.

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.

Again, they believed it was Egyptian but it really wasn't. That's all that needs to be said here. If you want to explain this as "two different Egyptian languages," then to me this seems like needless obfuscation. But go ahead. Either way, it is irrelevant to my response to William's claims.

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.

The distinction is one I've already acknowledged and exploring it further is a superfluous red herring that has nothing to do with the problem with William's erroneous claims about this document.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Mola,

I think Will has been pretty clear.

I do too. That's why I cited him word for word. He clearly argued that the Egyptian Counting document served to tell us the "purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. His explanation was also quite clear. He believed it was intended to be a cipher. Of course, he no longer believes that, and so it is his burden to reconcile the fact that he is now abandoning his original argument while at the same time claiming he isn't.

I suggest a review of his Fair address.

I do too. I'm taking it for granted that people entering this discussion have already watched it. His FAIR address confirms everything I have said he argued. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that many people here have actually listened to the presentation with clear understanding.

I would also point out that Will's primary thesis has always been that the EAG/GAEL was dependent upon an existing text.

Which is irrelevant to the thesis explaining the "meaning and purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. It doesn't matter if he calls it "primary" or not, it is still a separate argument that will be addressed elsewhere. I'm addressing the cipher argument first because:

1) He discusses this theory first in the presentation and gets into the meat of the argument in the second video.

2) He spends more time on this theory than anything else

3) He says it explains the "purpose" of the project, which sounds kind of important, given the title of the presentation.

I have already responded to his preexistent text theory, which is equally problematic. William knows about my response and he read it a year ago when I first posted it online. I will explain the problems with that portion of his theory after we've covered the cipher theory a little more.

And that the cipher theory, even if proven false, was always 2ndary and would not effect his primary thesis.

On the contrary, it would mean that his attempt to explain the "meaning and purpose" was an utter failure.

I am also aware of no "moving targets" as you claim, Cobalt.

Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with William's contradicting statements. In 2010 he said the "purpose" was to create a cipher and just last week he said he doesn't believe they were trying to make a cipher at all. I provided the citations in my original post and they appear in blue.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Hi Cobalt,

I think you misunderstood the purpose for the image of the Anthon transcript. I never intended to argue where the characters came from nor did I try to argue that they were "copied" from some other source (obviously not all of them appear on the transcript). My only point was in response to William's assumption that these men never believed these characters had anything to do with real Egyptian. I showed that there are strong similarities between these characters and characters they would have already understood to be "reformed" Egyptian. If they had no problem believing some Arabic numbers were Reformed Egyptian, then why not Egyptian? It makes no sense to say Arabic numbers could have derived from "reformed" Egyptian, but not Egyptian.

I also explain that we would expect minor variations because one set represented Egyptian whereas ther represented "reformed" Egyptian. In any type of language that has been "reformed" we would expect strong resemblances to the original, while differences would naturally exist too. William showed that some of these characters were identical to Sanskrit, but some of them were no more "identical" than the examples I presented from the Anthon transcript. He was not being consistent when he claimed some were "identical" to Sanskrit but only had a slight resemblance to the Anthon transcript. So in short, there was every reason to believe these men saw these numbers to be representative of the Egyptian counting system.

I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the refuting evidence I presented. I mean, so far no one has even touched on the evidence I presented from Joseph Smith's Facsimile explanations. As I said, that seems to be the coffin nail for William's cipher theory, because his theory rests on his flawed understanding of the Counting document. Joseph Smith used this counting document to produce a literal "translation," (eh = one; William says they were enciphering not translating) and so this provides all the evidence that is needed to render his argument null and void.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

ldsfaqs,

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

Yes, the same poster who also said we could discuss this in another thread if anyone wants. If you want to, then start another thread. I promise to respond.

[wenglund]

I am very pleased that Kevin responded to my questions in an intelligent and respectful manner. It makes for an enjoyable and hopefully productive exchange.

To recap, he agrees with me that while he and I (as well as Phelps and whoever) may call the Counting document "Egyptian," it is not real "Egyptian," and it is not the "Egyptian" that may be found on the papyri, and so we agree that we are talking about two different "Egyptian" languages.

The next question I have for Kevin is: If he and I can agree we are talking about two different "Egyptian" languages, then why couldn't Phelps, the writer and likely author of the Counting document, also be talking about a different "Egyptian" language than the real "Egyptian" on the papyri, which bears no resemblance to the "Egyptian" on the Counting document?

Now, whether Kevin and I can agree that Phelps could do so, I and others (like Will) reasonably believe that he could. Since we do, then our arguments and our responses to counter-arguments, must be interpreted and engaged in that light.

Having said this, in my next post I will begin taking a look at what Kevin claims Will has argued, and then move on to consider Kevin's response.

I look forward to a continuation of this kind of intelligent and non-personalized and subject-focused exchange.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 6, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

wade,

The next question I have for Kevin is: If he and I can agree we are talking about two different "Egyptian" languages, then why couldn't Phelps, the writer and likely author of the Counting document, also be talking about a different "Egyptian" language than the real "Egyptian" on the papyri, which bears no resemblance to the "Egyptian" on the Counting document?

No evidence has been presented to support the proposition that Phelps believed he was making up a non-Egyptian, Egyptian language. Thus, there is no reason to believe this is what he was trying to do. Calling a language you know not to be Egyptian, an "Egyptian" language, makes absolutely no sense.

And contrary to popular assertion, Phelps wasn't "likely" the author of this document for the reasons explained. First and foremost is the fact that the Facsimile "explanation," subsequently canonized by the Church, was received by divine revelation and presented as coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith. It contains one of the words translated in the Egyptian Counting document. So there is every reason to believe the source for this came from the one man who was presumed to have the ability to "restore" things via revelation. And his name wasn't William Wines Phelps. Moreover, the Facsimile explanation refers to this as Egyptian as understood by the Egyptians. There is no distinction made between "real" Egyptian and a "different kind" of Egyptian that's not really Egyptian.

As Joseph Smith explained,

"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."

As the Egyptian document explains, eh is "Egyptian" for the English number one.

Qualifying the Egyptian in the GAEL as though it were referring to a "different kind" of Egyptian, has not been justified by the evidence. In fact, there are plenty of examples where characters were taken from the papyrus, which we all agree contained "real Egyptian."

Now, whether Kevin and I can agree that Phelps could do so, I and others (like Will) reasonably believe that he could.

Do I believe that Phelps could create a fake Egyptian language "which bears no resemblance to the 'Egyptian' on the Counting document"? Sure. Most people probably could. How does this change the fact that William argued that the Egyptian Counting Document indicates an enciphering project, when we already know at least one of the terms found therein was deciphered and canonized as such?

Edit: I should add that William repeatedly claims that the characters from the Alphabet do not appear on the papyri. But this is absolutely false. Virtually all of them appear on Facsimile 1, and those that do not were either divined or restored. He also said they appear as though they were arbitrarily placed at random, with no rhyme or reason to it. But this is also false. The Alphabet chapters in all three manuscripts were taken in sequence from the columns wrapped around the Facsimile on JSP 1. All five columns representing parts one through five of the first degree. All three were very meticulous in their detail. Clearly it was important to them that these characters properly represented what was on the papyri. This flies in the face of current claims that their project had nothing to do with real Egyptian as represented on the Egyptian papyri.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Xander

[Minos]

This thread has turned around and is now the kind of discussion we want to see.

(Anyone who tries to pull this discussion down to bickering will be thread banned at the slightest provocation.)

[floatingboy]

wade, as i've said before, i like that you try to engage people on a respectful level, usually. but i do have a problem with the leaps that you try to make.

"can we agree that A could be possible? if so, then isn't B also possible?"

the problem with this is that you can do this with anything. for example, recent scientific findings confirm that neutrino particles have travelled faster than light. since this calls into question a premise upon which important calculations in the theory of relativity relies, isn't it possible that the reckoning of time fluctuates? maybe the space-time continuum isn't constant? if this is possible, then maybe roger bannister never really broke the 4 minute mile, and people haven't gotten faster after all. (i'm aware that a physicist would probably laugh at my attempts to sound like i understand the theories, but that's also kind of part of my point...)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This thread has turned around and is now the kind of discussion we want to see.

(Anyone who tries to pull this discussion down to bickering will be thread banned at the slightest provocation.)

FAIR has much to say on this issue...for those who do not know.

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg

If you have something to add then add it. Do not put up links without relating them to the discussion by talking about the content.

[wenglund]

wade,

No evidence has been presented to support the proposition that Phelps believed he was making up a non-Egyptian, Egyptian language.

In my opinion, we have the same evidence for Phelps as we had for ourselves in deciding that the "Egyptian" in the Counting document is not the same "Egyptian" as on the papyri. In fact, I would think the evidence we had in making our decision is all the more enforce with Phelps since he knew perfectly well that he was creating his "Egyptian" and wasn't getting his "Egyptian" from real "Egytian" sources like papyri.

However, as with many aspects of the Abrahamic debates, such things are a matter of opinion. You are free to reasonably conclude differently on this matter than me, while I am free to reasonably conclude as I have.

And contrary to popular assertion, Phelps wasn't "likely" the author of this document for the reasons explained.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I have reasonably determined otherwise, and for reasons I went to great lengths to delineate on this thread.

I invite you to present on that thread the bit of evidence you posted on this thread in favor of your opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

wade, as i've said before, i like that you try to engage people on a respectful level, usually. but i do have a problem with the leaps that you try to make.

"can we agree that A could be possible? if so, then isn't B also possible?"

the problem with this is that you can do this with anything. for example...

That is an interesting point to consider.

However, I am afraid that you are ironically making a leap of your own. You are assuming that since in some cases the possibility of "B" doesn't follow from "A", then what I suggested doesn't follow. Yet, by you simply posting an example, I don't know if your example is applicable or not to what I said. I can't tell if it is or isn't a false analogy.

To bridge that leap you need to go beyond providing an example of an errant leap, to then logically showing how what I said matches, in principle, your example. Good luck with that.

Better yet, if you are seeing a leap in what I said, and you are not following the leap, then please ask me to explain how I made the leap. Chances are, I can cover the logical steps in-between, and if not, then we can reconsider things at that point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 6, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

First and foremost, you haven't established definitively that Phelps was the author of the the KEP. Since this is therefore an unsure premise, even more unsure are things that are based on it.

But here is where we get to the leaps I'm referring to:

The next question I have for Kevin is: If he and I can agree we are talking about two different "Egyptian" languages...

Kevin did really agree that there are two different Egyptian languages here, or at least I don't think he did. He says, "If you want to frame it that way, sure." Although I doubt he's willing to go the distance in the direction you're going. At least I'm not, since what I believe you to be saying is that the author(s) of the Counting document , while calling it "Egyptian", did not in fact really think it was. This is the first suspect premise.

…then why couldn't Phelps, the writer and likely author of the Counting document, (not at all established) also be talking about a different "Egyptian" language than the real "Egyptian" on the papyri, which bears no resemblance to the "Egyptian" on the Counting document?

This is where we have "if A is possible, then isn't B possible?". You can do this with almost any topic, but it only amounts to possibilities, not reality. Lincoln felt sick on the train ride to deliver the Gettysburg address, and later had a somewhat long illness. It's thought possible that he was in the first stages of smallpox during the address. If this is possible, then isn't it also possible that Lincoln later believed that God was displeased with his speech? And couldn't God's displeasure mean that He favored the South?

Neither this nor my previous example are meant to be exact analogies to your reasoning, but rather to show the futility of basing supposition on supposition.

So I ask you the question, what reason do we have to believe that the authors of the Counting document knew that it wasn't real Egyptian but chose to call it that anyway? What evidence?

[Xander]

In my opinion, we have the same evidence for Phelps as we had for ourselves in deciding that the "Egyptian" in the Counting document is not the same "Egyptian" as on the papyri.

"Evidence" which amounts to little more than the fact that much of the project is in his handwriting. I can explain that. He was a hired scribe. Mystery solved. All the textual anomalies that you refer to are moot points, especially when based on shady black and white photos. Some of your observations aren't entirely wrong, but the conclusions you make are non sequiturs. A lot of the stuff you talked about as evidence could easily be accounted for if you allowed for the possibility that what he wrote was dictated to him. But since you don't allow for that, your conclusions are limited to and ultimately shaped by those presuppositions.

In fact, I would think the evidence we had in making our decision is all the more enforce with Phelps since he knew perfectly well that he was creating his "Egyptian" and wasn't getting his "Egyptian" from real "Egytian" sources like papyri.

Again, the fact that some of this stuff is in his handwriting, even the later stage stuff, isn't evidence that he is the guy behind the madness called the GAEL. Your anecdotes are things I can account for in my model. But I have yet to see if Will can account for the evidence I present that undermines his thesis. I can easily account for the things you mentioned in that other thread, by simply accepting the fact that W.W. phelps was a scribe who was hired to write down the words of his employer, who was Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery had the same job and the three of them were working on this thing together.

So unlike Will's evidences, my reasons for rejecting Will's thesis about Phelps aren't based on my opinion or speculation; they are based on demonstrable fact.

For example:

1) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that month: "...with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics." Scribes acting as scribes don't take leading roles in projects.

2) It is a fact that Joseph Smith produced the explanations for Facsimile 2, via revelation. But these explanations derive in part, from what you and Will say was a product of W.W. Phelps. Both cannot be true.

3) It is a fact that only Joseph Smith, as Prophet Seer and Revelator, was able to produce a restored data from ancient texts. There is no evidence to suggest Phelps did, or that anyone believed Phelps could do this.

4) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that he, not Phelps, was "continually engaged in translating an alphabet"; not enciphering an imaginary language and not taking the lead from his scribe.

5) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal about laboring on the Alphabet and Grammar, and Phelps is never mentioned as anything but a hired scribe. Phelps, on the other hand, wrote about the Egyptian records to his wife on multiple occasions and never once mentioned being a project leader of any sort. This is something we would expect him to boast to his wife. In fact, in September 1835 he seemed disappointed that nothing had been doing for some time with "translation of the Egyptian record." Joseph Smith was out of town on Church business, which is why the project came to a halt. But there was nothing stopping Phelps from continuing what you and Will insist was his project. So why didn't he? Why did the project pick up again only after Joseph Smith returned to town?

These are five monumental hurdles for any theory saying Phelps was responsible for this stuff. So far I've seen no reconcilation with this evidence. All I have seen is the reasserting of "evidence" that Will thinks supports his thesis. But as I said, I can account for those evidences in my model. It remains to be seen if Will can account for the evidence listed above.

Anyway, I hope this side-bar chat about Phelps doesn't mean you guys are not going to address the evidences I listed against the Cipher theory. There are still a number of evidences I listed in this thread that no one has addressed yet.

[wenglund]

Since Kevin and I agree that the Counting document is a different "Egyptian" than real "Egyptian," or in other words it in not the kind of "Egyptian" that may be found on Egyptian papyri, then my next question is to ask if we agree that the Egyptian Counting document could not be used to decipher Egyptian papyri?

Now, when I say "real Egyptian," I should mention that there isn't just one real Egyptian language, but several (see HERE).

• Archaic Egyptian (before 2600 BC, the language of the Early Dynastic Period)
  
• Old Egyptian (2686 BC – 2181 BC, the language of the Old Kingdom)
  
• Middle Egyptian (2055 BC – 1650 BC), characterizing Middle Kingdom (2055 BC – 1650 BC, but enduring through the early 18th Dynasty until the Amarna Period (1353 BC), and continuing on as a literary language into the 4th century AD).
  
• Late Egyptian (1069 BC – 700 BC, characterizing the Third Intermediate Period (1069 BC – 700 BC), but starting earlier with the Amarna Period (1353 BC)).
  
• Demotic (7th century BC – 5th century AD, Late Period through Roman times)
  
• Coptic (1st century AD – 17th century AD, early Roman times to early modern times)
  
• Egyptian Arabic (today)
  

The thing is, were one to look at the Egyptian counting systems and alphabet and grammar used today, they would look quite different from the same for Late Egyptian (i.e. hieratic, the language in which the Joseph Smith papyri were written). Both are called "Egyptian," but the one language cannot be used to translate the other.

It may be of interest to note that Coptic Egyptian language borrowed its alphabet from the Greeks, whereas Arabic Egyptian was influence by a variety of Arabic languages "of the Semitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family," as well as "other languages such as Turkish/Ottoman Turkish, Italian, French and English."

I mention this to show that at various times throughout Egyptian history, their language was "made up" by borrowing characters, sounds, and grammar from different sources, and yet it is still considered "real Egyptian."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

First and foremost, you haven't established definitively that Phelps was the author of the KEP.

Why would I need to? We aren't talking here about things that can be definitively determined either way. Instead, we are talking about matters of opinion. So, as long as I have made a reasonable and logically sound case for my proposition, then even if you don't agree with it, I am logically permitted to continue to then build my case on that proposition.

But here is where we get to the leaps I'm referring to: Kevin didn't really agree that there are two different Egyptian languages here, or at least I don't think he did. He says, "If you want to frame it that way, sure." Although I doubt he's willing to go the distance in the direction you're going. At least I'm not, since what I believe you to be saying is that the author(s) of the Counting document , while calling it "Egyptian", did not in fact really think it was. This is the first suspect premise.

Again, it is you who is making the leap. I haven't yet said what you are here claiming I am saying. I may be heading in that direction. But, I haven't gotten there as yet. When I do, then if I haven't connected the steps in-between, you will have a legitimate complaint. Until then, you don't. Sorry.

Now, for whatever reason, you may not like where I am heading with my argument, and that is okay for you. But, your not liking where I am logically headed, is not a logical counter to where I am headed, nor is it logically an indication that I have taken a leap.

So I ask you the question, what reason do we have to believe that the authors of the Counting document knew that it wasn't real Egyptian but chose to call it that anyway? What evidence?

Let's take this one step at a time so as not to be falsely accused yet again of taking a leap. Could you please answer for me the questions that I asked Kevin? Once I get your answers, and I know where you stand, then I will know better how to proceed with you. Please keep in mind the questions I have asked thus are in relation to how you think, and not how Phelps of anyone else thinks--though my last question does take a step in that direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

When inventing a new "Egyptian" language, characters can workably be drawn from a variety of sources or invented at will. Such has been the case with the development of many languages, including shorthand--not the least of which is Tironian Notes (see Richard Stout's imaginative comparison of Tironian Notes and the Anthon Caracter).

As you point out to Kevin, it doesn't work so well when someone strains to shoehorn a comparison so as to prop up one's floundering theory.

Well, I'm equally unconvinced about Will's claim that some of the characters are Sanskrit, Masonic, or that any of them have anything whatsoever to do with the Templars. The shoehorn goes both ways.

The one thing that I do think is absolutely obvious to anyone who is looking at this objectively--and this is where you and I apparently disagree--is that Smith believed that these characters, both in the EA/GAEL and in the Caractors document, were Egyptian. Smith thought that some Egyptian characters were essentially the same as Arabic numerals. He was wrong, but that's clearly what he thought. All the external evidence, as well as the internal evidence described above by Xander, points to that conclusion.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Whether or not it was "secondary," it was still a theory, and Will devoted an entire half-hour video to the subject. The question is, does Will still stand by it, or not. If not, then we can move on, and we won't have to belabor the issue.

[wenglund]

The one thing that I do think is absolutely obvious to anyone who is looking at this objectively--and this is where you and I apparently disagree--is that Smith believed that these characters, both in the EA/GAEL and in the Caractors document, were Egyptian.

I don't know how likely it is to look objectively at this relatively subjective issue, but speaking of leaps, you jumped from me talking specifically about the Egyptian Counting characters to you talking about the EA/GAEL and Anthon characters. How about we take this one step at a time? Are you suggesting that Joseph obviously viewed the Egyptian Counting characters as Egyptian? If so, how did you come to that conclusion given the fact that Joseph is completely silent about the EC? I can't find him mentioning that document, let alone the characters on that document, anywhere in the historical record. Metaphorically, his fingerprints are nowhere to be found on the document. Perhaps you have access to information I don't, and if so I would be pleased to have you share it.

However, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and grant that Smith, or Phelps or whomever, obviously believed the Egyptian Counting characters were Egyptian. The question this begs is which of the many "real" Egyptian languages (which I listed above), if any, did he or they "obviously" have in mind? And, on what basis do you make that claim?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 7, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

I don't know how likely it is to look objectively at this relatively subjective question, but speaking of leaps, you jumped from me talking specifically about the Egyptian Counting characters to you talking about the EA/GAEL and Anthon characters. How about we take this one step at a time? Are you suggesting that Joseph obviously viewed the Egyptian Counting characters as Egyptian? If so, how did you come to that conclusion given the fact that Joseph is completely silent about the EC? I can't find him mentioning that document, let alone the characters on that document, anywhere in the historical record. Perhaps you have access to information I don't, and if so I would be pleased to have you share it.

However, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and grant that Smith, or Phelps or whomever, obviously believed the Egyptian Counting characters were Egyptian. The question this begs is which of the many "real" Egyptian languages (which I listed above), if any, did he or they "obviously" have in mind? And, on what basis do you make that claim?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Your admirable efforts on this thread have persuaded me to break out a portion of the chapter in my forthcoming book that deals with the inimitable William Wines Phelps, the would-be linguist and translator of early Mormonism.

It's utterly pointless to attempt to disabuse Graham of the extraordinary level of misunderstanding and misrepresentation that underlies his posts on this thread. You have exhibited an extraordinary amount of patience in dealing with it.

Kevin is working hard to behave and avoid the personal jabs. Please show him similar respect. -Ares

At any rate, either tomorrow or the next day I will start a new thread that should prove quite interesting to those who are interested in this topic ...

[wenglund]

"Evidence" which amounts to little more than the fact that much of the project is in his handwriting. I can explain that. He was a hired scribe. Mystery solved. All the textual anomalies that you refer to are moot points, especially when based on shady black and white photos. Some of your observations aren't entirely wrong, but the conclusions you make are non sequiturs. A lot of the stuff you talked about as evidence could easily be accounted for if you allowed for the possibility that what he wrote was dictated to him. But since you don't allow for that, your conclusions are limited to and ultimately shaped by those presuppositions.

Again, the fact that some of this stuff is in his handwriting, even the later stage stuff, isn't evidence that he is the guy behind the madness called the GAEL. Your anecdotes are things I can account for in my model. But I have yet to see if Will can account for the evidence I present that undermines his thesis. I can easily account for the things you mentioned in that other thread, by simply accepting the fact that W.W. phelps was a scribe who was hired to write down the words of his employer, who was Joseph Smith. Oliver Cowdery had the same job and the three of them were working on this thing together.

So unlike Will's evidences, my reasons for rejecting Will's thesis about Phelps aren't based on my opinion or speculation; they are based on demonstrable fact.

For example:

1) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that month: "...with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics." Scribes acting as scribes don't take leading roles in projects.

2) It is a fact that Joseph Smith produced the explanations for Facsimile 2, via revelation. But these explanations derive in part, from what you and Will say was a product of W.W. Phelps. Both cannot be true.

3) It is a fact that only Joseph Smith, as Prophet Seer and Revelator, was able to produce a restored data from ancient texts. There is no evidence to suggest Phelps did, or that anyone believed Phelps could do this.

4) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that he, not Phelps, was "continually engaged in translating an alphabet"; not enciphering an imaginary language and not taking the lead from his scribe.

5) It is a fact that Joseph Smith wrote in his journal about laboring on the Alphabet and Grammar, and Phelps is never mentioned as anything but a hired scribe. Phelps, on the other hand, wrote about the Egyptian records to his wife on multiple occasions and never once mentioned being a project leader of any sort. This is something we would expect him to boast to his wife. In fact, in September 1835 he seemed disappointed that nothing had been doing for some time with "translation of the Egyptian record." Joseph Smith was out of town on Church business, which is why the project came to a halt. But there was nothing stopping Phelps from continuing what you and Will insist was his project. So why didn't he? Why did the project pick up again only after Joseph Smith returned to town?

These are five monumental hurdles for any theory saying Phelps was responsible for this stuff. So far I've seen no reconcilation with this evidence. All I have seen is the reasserting of "evidence" that Will thinks supports his thesis. But as I said, I can account for those evidences in my model. It remains to be seen if Will can account for the evidence listed above.

Anyway, I hope this side-bar chat about Phelps doesn't mean you guys are not going to address the evidences I listed against the Cipher theory. There are still a number of evidences I listed in this thread that no one has addressed yet.

Kevin,

I am sorry, but you are evidently mistaken as to what exactly I was speaking to in the several quotes to which you were responding. You thought I was making a case for Phelps as the project leader, when in fact I was making a case for why I thought Phelps (or whomever) may have believed that the "Egyptian" in the Counting document was not the same "Egyptian" as on the Papyri.

Now that this confusion has hopefully been cleared up, feel free to respond to my post with the correct understanding in mind. I look forward to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Since Kevin and I agree that the Counting document is a different "Egyptian" than real "Egyptian," or in other words it in not the kind of "Egyptian" that may be found on Egyptian papyri, then my next question is to ask if we agree that the Egyptian Counting document could not be used to decipher Egyptian papyri?

The answer is no, but that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Smith and Phelps thought they could decipher real Egyptian using the Egyptian Counting document. And evidently Smith did, given the translation of "Jah-oh-eh" from Facsimile #2.

[William Schryver]

The answer is no, but that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Smith and Phelps thought they could decipher real Egyptian using the Egyptian Counting document. And evidently Smith did, given the translation of "Jah-oh-eh" from Facsimile #2.

Another baseless assertion, among so many on this thread.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith had anything at all to do with the production of the Egyptian Counting document.

Anyway, I'll have more to say tomorrow ...

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know how likely it is to look objectively at this relatively subjective issue, but speaking of leaps, you jumped from me talking specifically about the Egyptian Counting characters to you talking about the EA/GAEL and Anthon characters. How about we take this one step at a time? Are you suggesting that Joseph obviously viewed the Egyptian Counting characters as Egyptian? If so, how did you come to that conclusion given the fact that Joseph is completely silent about the EC? I can't find him mentioning that document, let alone the characters on that document, anywhere in the historical record. Metaphorically, his fingerprints are nowhere to be found on the document. Perhaps you have access to information I don't, and if so I would be pleased to have you share it.

The Egyptian Counting document is part of Smith's project to create an Egyptian alphabet. A dictionary of numbers is not that different from a dictionary of letters.

However, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and grant that Smith, or Phelps or whomever, obviously believed the Egyptian Counting characters were Egyptian. The question this begs is which of the many "real" Egyptian languages (which I listed above), if any, did he or they "obviously" have in mind? And, on what basis do you make that claim?

Neither Smith nor Phelps (nor, for that matter, even most scholars of the time) were sophisticated enough to know that there were all these various flavors of Egyptian script that you describe above. To these guys, Egyptian was just some romantic and mysterious ancient language that nobody knew much about.