The Cipher Theory

[William Schryver]

Even if the Egyptian Counting document could have been, in some strange universe, used as a cipher, it is a great leap to suggest that it must have been intended for use as a cipher.

Utterly false assertion. Not only is the Egyptian Counting table obviously a simple substitution cipher key (complete with two columns of cipher text and a single column of plain text), but it was used as such by Phelps in his GAEL entry for character #67!

Again, I am at a complete loss to understand your obtuse intransigence on this obviously incontrovertible point.

Edited December 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Your argument is that because the Egyptian Counting document does not contain real Egyptian numbers, then Smith and Phelps did not intend the Egyptian Counting document to be about Egyptian counting.

You have way over-simplified and distorted my argument. Please don't. Let me speak for myself, and I will respectfully do the same. Now, I have carefully laid out my argument logistically in two previous posts. Feel free to look through those posts and tell me if, or which points you disagree.

Moreover, there is proof to the contrary, such as Smith's explanation for item 11 of Facsimile #2.

Would you please explain this supposed "proof" to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Not to belabor Will's point, but in a way all languages (including computer languages) and writing and speaking systems (including stenography and sign language) are ciphers and codes, and require enciphering and deciphering and encoding and decoding. Such is the nature of language, particular languages we don't know and are learning. This means that, in a way, all dictionaries are cipher keys and code books.

In the broadest sense, this is true. But, as Lehi and I have both noted above, dictionaries are not fully analogous to the concept of a cipher key. On the other hand, the Egyptian Counting manuscript is a rather elementary specimen of a substitution cipher key.

Even though what I just said is true, we often don't think of languages in those terms because we tend to associate the words "cipher" and "code" and "cryptography" with the intent to keep messages secret, whereas we tend to view languages as intended to facilitate open and ease of communication. With this in mind, what I think you may be questioning is whether the EC and EA and GAEL were created with the intent to keep messages secret. That is a topic of interest and open to debate.

Exactly! More study is required to understand the EC/EA/GAEL within the context of the times in 1835, when there was also an effort underway to actually "encrypt" some aspects of Joseph Smith's revelations. Is there a relationship between these things? Perhaps. But much remains to be understood about that relationship, assuming there was one.

Also, contrary to what Kevin suggested earlier, both Will and I haven't exactly been silent online regarding our beliefs about the relationship between the Counting document and the GAEL or the EA's for that matter. In fact, we have taken the discussion several steps beyond Paul Osbourne's findings, and have talked about the use of "ni" and "tah" as well as "eh" and "veh" (see for example HERE).

There is no relationship between "Jah oh eh" and the Egyptian Counting system. There are also several other characters that incorporate "eh" in their "sound"--only one of which ("Pha eh") has a possible relationship to the Egyptian Counting system name for "one" (eh). This is simply another example where Graham exhibits his unfamiliarity with the source materials.

[wenglund]

No. This is just one of the reasons why the fact that Smith didn't specifically mention the Egyptian Counting document in his records is not proof (as you claim it is) that he had nothing to do with creating it.

No. I didn't offer it as "proof" that Joseph had nothing to do with creating it. Rather, I offered it as evidence that we have no "proof" that he did have anything to do with creating. Somehow, you managed to interpret my comments exactly backwards from what I actually said.

It's you, not me, that is assuming that Smith and Phelps were sufficiently grounded in real Egyptology so as to have been familiarity with two or three varieties of real Egyptian script. My point is made by disputing your presumption that Smith and Phelps were experts in real Egyptology, so why should I adopt that presumption myself?

I don't know how you went from me saying Smith and Phelps may have been somewhat familiar with different types of Egyptian, to you putting the word "expert" into my mouth. I wish you would stop doing that. Please engage what I have actually said, the discussion will go much better that way.

If Smith and Phelps were not competent Egyptologists, then the foundation of your argument that "it ain't real Egyptian, therefore it couldn't have been meant to be real Egyptian" falls into a black hole.

I see it otherwise. Whatever the case, please let me know if or what points of my syllogism you may disagree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Cobalt-70:

Moreover, there is proof to the contrary, such as Smith's explanation for item 11 of Facsimile #2.

Huh?

What are you talking about?

If you are referring to "Jah oh eh", see my post above:

There is no relationship between "Jah oh eh" and the Egyptian Counting system. There are also several other characters that incorporate "eh" in their "sound"--only one of which ("Pha eh") has a possible relationship to the Egyptian Counting system name for "one" (eh). This is simply another example where Graham exhibits his unfamiliarity with the source materials.

[wenglund]

Actually, it is quite likely that Phelps, Smith, et al. were informed as to the nature of Egyptian as it was understood in 1835. The 1818 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica had an excellent multi-page entry, complete with extensive illustrations, of Egyptian as it was understood at that date. It cites extensively from Thomas Young's work. It is available via GoogleBooks at this link: Egypt.

I was looking for this just last night. Evidently, I didn't look hard enough. Great find!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I was looking for this just last night. Evidently, I didn't look hard enough. Great find!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is a rather exhaustive entry, with an extraordinary amount of information concerning Egyptian--hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic. It has tons of illustrations, showing the differences between the various scripts. Young had also successfully translated some Egyptian. The 1818 edition was widely available in the United States, and had been (obviously) for almost two decades! There can be little doubt that Phelps et al. would have been aware of it.

I encourage people interested in this topic to read the portion of the entry that deals with the Egyptian language. I have a printed copy of it and have discovered several very interesting things!

[wenglund]

There is no relationship between "Jah oh eh" and the Egyptian Counting system. There are also several other characters that incorporate "eh" in their "sound"--only one of which ("Pha eh") has a possible relationship to the Egyptian Counting system name for "one" (eh). This is simply another example where Graham exhibits his unfamiliarity with the source materials.

Good point. I noticed the breakdown in Kevin's example in terms of the mismatch in characters between the EC and Facsimile #2. But, I didn't go that extra mile to see the mismatch in sounds and explanations (the character is iffy) between the EC and GAEL, so I am glad you did. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

The lack of respect I'm referring to, Will, is the fact that you think that if people disagree with you it's because they can't "grasp" the concept, and that if many people are tripped up by your terminology, it's their fault, not yours.

[wenglund]

It is a rather There can be little doubt that Phelps et al. would have been aware of it. I encourage people interested in this topic to read the portion of the entry that deals with the Egyptian language. I have a printed copy of it and have discovered several very interesting things!

Does it have anything to do with "sounds"?

I'll read and find out. I ask because during my brief research last night I got the sense that Young and Champollion were somewhat divided over the issue of "sounds" in there respective philosophies about the Egyptian language.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

The lack of respect I'm referring to, Will, is the fact that you think that if people disagree with you it's because they can't "grasp" the concept, and that if many people are tripped up by your terminology, it's their fault, not yours.

I'm so broken up by the fact that you feel disrespected. This is a classic apostate evangelist ploy. When "you people" run out of obfuscatory arguments in a debate, you predictably turn to the "you're being uncivil" card (Chris Smith played it a few weeks ago when I exposed the hollowness of his alleged counter-arguments to my primary thesis).

There are variations on the gambit, too. Sometimes, it's the "apologists are angry and unchristianlike" angle. Pahoran and I hear that one all the time.

[wenglund]

Actually, it is quite likely that Phelps, Smith, et al. were informed as to the nature of Egyptian as it was understood in 1835. The 1818 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica had an excellent multi-page entry, complete with extensive illustrations, of Egyptian as it was understood at that date. It cites extensively from Thomas Young's work. It is available via GoogleBooks at this link: Egypt.

Unfortunately, this appears to be the 1910 version. I was clued in that it wasn't the 1818 edition because during my reading there was mention of work in Egyptology that was done in the late 1800's. Still, it gives us a sense for what may have been contained in that earlier edition--though, having access to a copy of the 1818 version would be nice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Where the logic skids off the rails in at item #7, and then by item #9 it becomes a train wreck. Item #7 is a false conclusion, because nobody has shown that the Egyptian Counting document could have been used as a cipher key. In what world do there exist cipher keys that substitute the numeral "5" for "5", "4" for "4", and "8" for "8"? If they were intended to encrypt information, this is not a very smart way to do so. I don't understand item #8, so let me skip to item #9, which is a non sequitur. Even if the Egyptian Counting document could have been, in some strange universe, used as a cipher, it is a great leap to suggest that it must have been intended for use as a cipher.

Perhaps you, like some others, are getting hung up on the word "cipher." I am using the broad sense of the word, and you seem to be interpreting it in a more narrow and rigid sense. Try interpreting it in the broad way that I mean, rather than in the narrow sense in which you seem inclined. If that isn't of help, then, as Will has suggested, use the word "translation" in place of "cipher."

My reason for using the word "cipher" rather than "translation" is because it lends itself better to distinguishing and identifying the direction of translation (decipher as differentiated from encipher), which distinction is very important to my compassionate reconstruction of Will's argument.

Now, I can accept that even after following my suggestions above you may still not agree with the logic. Nevertheless, your disagreement doesn't negate the argument. It is still logical and reasonable, and since I do agree with it, I can logically build on it as such.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

Keep thinking that, Will. Best of luck to you!

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, it is quite likely that Phelps, Smith, et al. were informed as to the nature of Egyptian as it was understood in 1835. The 1818 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica had an excellent multi-page entry, complete with extensive illustrations, of Egyptian as it was understood at that date. It cites extensively from Thomas Young's work. It is available via GoogleBooks at this link: Egypt.

Based on what information I have available, the Encyclopaedia Britannica was not published in the United States until its 9th edition in 1875. Smith and Phelps would not have had access to this information.

In the United States, the major encyclopedias were Dobson's Encyclopeadia, which was based on a pirated version of the 18th century 3rd edition of Britannica, and therefore would not have had this updated Egyptian material, and the Encyclopaedia Americana, first published in 1833.

I don't have access to the 1833 Encyclopaedia Americana, but the 1851 version exhibits an incredible ignorance. For example, its Egypt article (p. 418) states that the Egyptians "must, therefore, have made considerable progress in arithmetic. The arithmetical figures (the same that we call Arabic) they wrote from right to left." So if Smith and Phelps had ever read this entry in the Encyclopaedia Americana, it is not surprising that they would come up with an Egyptian Counting document composed of essentially Arabic numerals.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Utterly false assertion. Not only is the Egyptian Counting table obviously a simple substitution cipher key (complete with two columns of cipher text and a single column of plain text), but it was used as such by Phelps in his GAEL entry for character #67!

That's true only if you presume your conclusion. You are saying that the Egyptian Counting document is a cypher because it was used in the GAEL for purpose of enciphering. But that presumes that the GAEL was intended as a cipher too, and that the notation for #67 was a cipher, rather than a translation. But your argument is that the GAEL was intended as a cipher because the Egyptian Counting document was a cipher. To prove something, you need to rely on things other than the conjecture you are trying to prove. Otherwise, it is circular.

[Cobalt-70]

Would you please explain this supposed "proof" to me.

In the explanation for #11 of Facsimile 2, Smith said that the figures were numbers. They are not. Therefore, Smith was not capable of determining which real Egyptian figures were numbers.

[Cobalt-70]

It is a rather exhaustive entry, with an extraordinary amount of information concerning Egyptian--hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic. It has tons of illustrations, showing the differences between the various scripts. Young had also successfully translated some Egyptian. The 1818 edition was widely available in the United States, and had been (obviously) for almost two decades! There can be little doubt that Phelps et al. would have been aware of it.

My information says otherwise. The 1818 edition of the Britannica was not widely available, or available at all, in the United States, and was not even published in the U.S. until 1875. See my previous post about the encyclopedias that were available in the U.S. during the Smith era.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps you, like some others, are getting hung up on the word "cipher." I am using the broad sense of the word, and you seem to be interpreting it in a more narrow and rigid sense. Try interpreting it in the broad way that I mean, rather than in the narrow sense in which you seem inclined. If that isn't of help, then, as Will has suggested, use the word "translation" in place of "cipher."

My reason for using the word "cipher" rather than "translation" is because it lends itself better to distinguishing and identifying the direction of translation (decipher as differentiated from encipher), which distinction is very important to my compassionate reconstruction of Will's argument.

Now, I can accept that even after following my suggestions above you may still not agree with the logic. Nevertheless, your disagreement doesn't negate the argument. It is still logical and reasonable, and since I do agree with it, I can logically build on it as such.

Even if you are backing away from the cryptographic implications of Will's FAIR speech, where he referred to Templar and Masonic codes for keeping information secret, what is the point of "enciphering" the numeral "4" as "4" or "5" as "5"? That's not even a cipher--that's just writing an Arabic digit. If you maintain this is a cipher, but that secrecy is no longer part of the equation, then what is the point of this exercise by Smith and Phelps?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[William Schryver]

That's true only if you presume your conclusion. You are saying that the Egyptian Counting document is a cypher because it was used in the GAEL for purpose of enciphering. But that presumes that the GAEL was intended as a cipher too, and that the notation for #67 was a cipher, rather than a translation. But your argument is that the GAEL was intended as a cipher because the Egyptian Counting document was a cipher. To prove something, you need to rely on things other than the conjecture you are trying to prove. Otherwise, it is circular.

Incoherent bunk. I'm on the road now and can't reply in detail. But your reply is nothing but an incoherent bluff.

[William Schryver]

Even if you are backing away from the cryptographic implications of Will's FAIR speech, where he referred to Templar and Masonic codes for keeping information secret, what is the point of "enciphering" the numeral "4" as "4" or "5" as "5"? That's not even a cipher--that's just writing an Arabic digit. If you maintain this is a cipher, but that secrecy is no longer part of the equation, then what is the point of this exercise by Smith and Phelps?

No one is "backing away" from anything! I've simply exposed the strawman nature of your previous arguments.

[William Schryver]

My information says otherwise. The 1818 edition of the Britannica was not widely available, or available at all, in the United States ...

Bunk!

But I do understand completely why this new information is so upsetting to you!

[William Schryver]

Unfortunately, this appears to be the 1910 version. I was clued in that it wasn't the 1818 edition because during my reading there was mention of work in Egyptology that was done in the late 1800's. Still, it gives us a sense for what may have been contained in that earlier edition--though, having access to a copy of the 1818 version would be nice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, I thought it was the 1818. I'll scan in the 1818 pages when I get a chance and post them online. It's great stuff!

[Loran Blood]

The lack of respect I'm referring to, Will, is the fact that you think that if people disagree with you it's because they can't "grasp" the concept, and that if many people are tripped up by your terminology, it's their fault, not yours.

Very frankly, I've never seen Will act this way toward sincere, honest critics who approach him in both a respectful and intellectually serious manner. Permit me, after long experience, to propose that some of this may involve a bit of conditioning and "war weariness" regarding much of the way he himself has been treated by others in the anti-Mormon world for quite sometime. It may also be that, when Will know what he is talking about, and has spent years of hard thinking and painstaking research developing expertise in a subject, and he sees others dismiss him with a snort and a wave of the hand, and then tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about, he may become a bit annoyed.

I became a bit jaded to certain approaches to argument and debate long ago, and do tend to anticipate a certain approach when confronted by a long recognized pattern.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

Even if you are backing away from the cryptographic implications of Will's FAIR speech, where he referred to Templar and Masonic codes for keeping information secret,

I am not backing away. I am just trying to work with you and your overly rigid and narrow interpretation of the word "cipher." Unfortunately, my work seem to have been for not.

what is the point of "enciphering" the numeral "4" as "4" or "5" as "5"? That's not even a cipher--that's just writing an Arabic digit. If you maintain this is a cipher, but that secrecy is no longer part of the equation, then what is the point of this exercise by Smith and Phelps?

It is the same point as with any "translation key", even those between languages that may share some characters in common. Take a look, for instance, at a Spanish-to-English "translation key." Notice that all the numeric characters are the same for English as they are for Spanish. Is that a problem? No. Why? Because not only is it helpful for those of us who speak English and who don't know Spanish, to be informed that the CHARACTERS are the same, but it is also important for us to be informed that the SOUNDS are different. This is important for us to know when deciphering Spanish to English or enciphering English to Spanish. Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-