The Cipher Theory

[Xander]

I am sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. In order to decipher all that text from three syllables, then logically all that text had to at one point been enciphered into those three syllables. Yet, you are suggesting that it is nonsense to think that such could be enciphered. So, logically, if it is nonsense to think it was enciphered, then it is nonsense to think it was deciphered.

Technically you are correct, it is nonsensical on both counts. However, we know that Joseph Smith understood Egyptian in this way becauseDavid Whitmer describes his translation of the "reformed Egyptian," saying "frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript."

And since we agree that they must have been doing one or the other, the question now becomes rather simple. Which is more likely? There is no system in place that would support William's argument that they were enciphering tons of English texts into small amounts of graphemes or syllables. But if they were trying to "decipher" an Ancient text via revelation, they could produce something like this without needing to explain the mechanics of it all. It is just there because God told him that's what it meant in that "degree."

Again, there is nothing to support Will's claim other than his failure to recognize a standard Grammar and Alphabet graph, while confusing it with a "substitution cipher", which generally do not contain a "sound" column. To what purpose is there in adding sounds to cipher symbols? Do the dots and right angles in Masonic ciphers have "names" or "sounds"? Every example you guys have presented seems to be completely different from what we see in teh Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

If you want to see something more comparable to Phelps's graph, then just open up any Grammar book of any given language. I have five at my disposal and all then them begin with an introduction on the Portuguese Alphabet and pronunciations, precisly as we see in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Since William seems infatuated with Phelps's table, I thought I'd share some that actually compare:

And of course the counting system...

Does any of this Look familiar? The first thing you need before learning the Grammar of any Language, is an understanding of the basic Alphabet along with the corresponding pronunciations. Numbers are naturally one of the first things you need to learn. Hence, Joseph Smith's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language has all the signs of an intended "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language." It is important to remember that William argues that it was no such thing. No, according to William, this was some ludicrous and quickly abandoned attempt to encrypt previously revealed revelations into a cipher, using, for some weird reason (and not that it REALLY has anything to do with the papyri!) characters taken sequentially from the Joseph Smith papyri which he says was the source for the Book of Abraham. I mean this is all just some wild coincidence, right? A coincidence that Joseph Smith would record in his journal that he was engaged in this project using Phelps and Cowdery as scribes, precisely at the exact moment when William says he was engaged in an enciphering project as W.W. Phelps's loyal follower and student.

Too bad William doesn't understand that some of the handwriting, especially the later emendations, belong to Warren Parrish, scribe to Joseph Smith and hired three months after the project started. This means they worked on this thing for a number of months. And it is too bad William doesn't understand that Joseph Smith's journal from November 1843 states that he suggested creating an Egyptian grammar, which flies in the face of William's claim that it was "quickly abandoned." Staring something in July 1835 and suggesting it again eight years later is hardly indicative of something that was immediately thought to be a lost cause. Of course, William doesn't respond to evidence. He just says "bunk" and leaves it at that.

However, while it may seem nonsensical from the perspective a modern Egyptologists to think that all that text could be deciphered from three syllable or even a single character (Kabbalist may see it differently), if someone is creating an new "Egyptian" language, it is not nonsense.

That is a non sequitur too. But they were not "creating" a new Egyptian language. They were translating what they understood to be Egyptian language spoken by the ancient Egyptians. You and Will are going off the reservation by digging into 19th century Encyclopedias to find out how many kinds of Egyptian were written about, and then leaping to the conclusion that Phelps and Smith were knowledgable on such things. This is a floundering theory based on nothing solid. It is one a mass of speculative theories that feed off each other but none of which can be substantiates with any degree of certainty. In the meantime, there is still the plethora of evidence weighing against Will's cipher theory, which he refuses to address.

They are free to encipher however they please depending upon their own objectives.

But the point is, there is no evidence that they were "enciphering" anything. And Will already stated recently that he doesn't believe they were trying to create a cipher. He has yet to reconcile his initial argument with his later "clarification" that clearly contradicts it. All he has done is tear into anyone who points this out to him.

If their objective is to convey large amounts of information in a small amount of space, then the EA/GAEL model works quite well, even given the admitted downside.

Actually it doesn't and you have yet to explain how this works quite well. There are so many points that have not been responded to, not least of which is the fact that it makes no sense to encipher information that is going to be published anyway. You and Will need to get on the same page on that one and come up with a good explanation. Were they trying to encrypt Joseph Smith's revelations to keep them hidden, or weren't they? That's the purpose of encryption.

I think you have that exactly backwards. If you read through the syllogism I compassionately reconstructed, you will see that Will's and my belief about enciphering was a logical conclusion that followed from the premise (among several) that the EC characters weren't Ancient Egyptian.

An obvious anecdote that is irrelevant. Of course they weren't Egyptian. But the fact is they thought they were. For goodness sakes, most of the Alphabet characters come straight from the REAL EGYPTIAN papyri, and many of the others were the result of Joseph Smith's attempt to "restore" alphabet characters that they believed were originally there. Had William done his homework he would have realized that virtually all the characters derive from JSP1. Instead, he avoids discussing this by focusing only on those characters with "explanations," ignoring the vast majority which had yet to be translated. Did you ever ask yourself why all three men painstakingly copied dozens of characters from JSP1 in sequence, which is contrary to William's baseless claim that they were placed arbitrarily at random? Did you ever ask yourself why each column of characters appears to correspond to a specific "part"? Why is it that they only decides to borrow Sanskrit and Arabic numerals for enciphering in the EC document but not in the Egyptian Alphabet? We can answer these questions easily, while William refuses to address them as if they do not matter. Of course, by listening to his misleading presentation you wouldn't even know about these facts because William doesn't share them. Because if you knew just how important these Egyptian documents were to their project, you couldn't possibly be persuaded by Will's claims that the papyri had nothing to do with it and therefore they never thought they were actually translating an Egyptian text.

You, like several other people on this thread, keep getting hung up on the word "cipher." Perhaps without intending, you have been applying an overly narrow and rigid interpretation onto a word that was used more broadly, or at least used in a way differently than you suppose. Since it has been such a stumbling block for you, Will has charitably suggested an alternative term "translation key." This should have put an end to the semantic game.

Will mentions the word cipher or encipher more than 90 times in the text version of his presentation. All I am doing is responding to his arguments as they were presented a year ago. If Will wants to back away from it, then fine, but he needs to do a better job of it, as he is still referring to this thing as a "cipher" key in every other post. He clearly argued that these men were creating a cipher. That the "purpose" of the entire GAEL was to "encipher" already existing English translations. That is what I am refuting with evidence. If a semantic game is being played, then Will is leading it. He wants to concede the point of "translation" without actually admitting he is conceding anything. This is why I avoid dealing with his attempt to get us caught up in his word games (saying all translations are technically ciphers etc) and instead focus strictly on what he claims these men were doing. He can now choose to call it a "translation key" if he wants, but I doubt that means he changed his mind about what he argued these men were doing in his presentation. From what I'm reading, he's still arguing the same exact thing and he still insists on the "cipher" terminology.

Will's comment, and the one you addressed in the OP of in this thread, was in regards to the Counting document, not the GAEL.

You need to listen to his presentation again, because he says this tells us the "purpose" of the GAEL. It was a cipher, plain and simple.

But, either way, could you please tell us what you think a cipher key should look like and what elements it would have that you believe the EC or the GAEL doesn't, or vice-versa

You've already provided an example with the link to substitution ciphers, but there are no columns with "sounds" explanations in these examples. All we see are single alphabet characters being substituted with other alphabet characters in a reverse sequence. This is hardly comparable to Phelps' table where characters are given sounds and given English explanations involving more complex concepts and multiple words. The examples on basic alphabet/grammar tables I provided above have far in more in common with Phelps' table than anything Will has produced from known "cipher keys."

Yet, you have been suggesting that it is a deciphering of a WRITTEN text (the papyri). Do you see the problem you have inadvertently created for yourself?

Huh? When I say the Egyptian was understood as a "spoken" language, I am not saying it isn't also a "written" language. Why must it be one or the other? They obviously understood it as both. Hence, the "sound" column.

Actually, Will gets to decide and clarify what he has argued. Not you. He has done so. The reasonable thing for you to do is accept his clarification and to move on, and not play semantic games. Is that too much to ask?

But he hasn't clarified anything. Why is he choosing to go with "translation" key now when he still maintains that it is a cipher key? I presented him with the obvious problem in his contradiction and he refuses to address the word for word citations I provided from his presentation, along with his word for word contradiction I provided from just two weeks ago. Instead he wants to blame everyone else for misunderstanding him even though we have his own account documented in both audio and text format.

The difference between enciphering and deciphering were clearly explained in his presentation and he unambiguously came down on the enciphering side. Thus, he needs to address the evidence that undermines this speculative theory. He needs to deal with the fact that he has essentially turned this project on its head and refuse to let it speak for itself. Thus, Egyptian doesn't mean Egyptian, translation doesn't really mean translation, English explanation is really a substitute value, etc etc. These are serious problems in his methodology which need to be addressed if we're going to have a serious discussion about his theory.

But so far he has willfully ignored every single point I have raised, and instead he has chosen to attack me and expose us all to these silly banter sessions with you, as if any of us care to witness the obnoxious back slapping and high-fiving that Will apparently believes is a valid substitute for an intellectual discussion. He doesn't want to answer questions or be held accountable for anything he does in error. He only wants to lecture as if he were in a position of authority to do so. Well, that's not why I started this thread. But his refusal to deal with evidence while maintaining the bravado, will serve the same purpose I suppose, since I'm confident that rational minds will interpret this for what it really is. Will's theory is dead in the water for all the reasons he has ignored. I just don't want to say too much that would postpone his "publication." We've been trying to get Will to publish something for years now.

In the explanation in Facsimile #2 Joseph said: "which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh." I could be reading it wrong, but this tells me that Joseph consider that sound/name to be Egyptian, or at least used by Egyptians.

Precisely!

It doesn't tell me which "Egyptian" he had in mind.

Why even speculate about this when there is absolutely no evidence that he had more than one kind of "Egyptian" in mind? Is this really how WIlliam plans to dodge this bullet found in the Facsimile explanations? By saying he must have had a few dozen kinds of Egyptian in mind, simply because some Brittanica article spoke about them in the 1800's, therefore he could be talking about something else? Please tell me this is his argument.

It also doesn't tell me what Phelps may have thought of the sound when producing the GAEL.

Phelps didn't produce the GAEL, and all asertions to the contrary are based on nothing more than a scribe's handwriting. All journal entries about this project point to Joseph Smith as the man behind the project. Of course, I've repeated this ad nauseum, but what else is there to do when no one will respond to it?

Wade, I think you would do well to be more resistant to Schryver's rhetoric on this subject. You had it right the first time and don't need him to tell you that you were wrong.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

After dozens of attempts to get WIlliam to address his errors, he finally responds to me with more than a few sentences, but he does so by totally misrepresenting what I argued.

My only point was that there is a clear relationship between Joseph Smith's facsimile explanation and the Egyptian Counting document. There are also other clear relationships established by the GAEL terms Kolob and Floeese, but that is beside the point.

In his overwhelming haste to contradict my criticism of his assertion that Jah oh eh has a relationship to the Egyptian Counting system, Graham has gone to a great deal of trouble to assemble what he believes to be an exhaustive list of other instances in the GAEL where the explanations for characters are related to the Egyptian Counting system. He is apparently under the impression that, in so doing, he is damaging my thesis! Has he not been paying attention at all? Apparently not, because he cites "Pha eh", which I have already mentioned several times.

It wasn't a "great deal of trouble"! I copied the examples within minutes. How does any of this change the fact that you downplay the connection "eh" has consistently with "one"? It doesn't.

He's clearly not paying attention. He's like the people with whom all of us have had conversations: they don't listen to a thing you're saying; they're just sitting there pondering what it is they're going to say next, and they will frequently just interject in the middle of your thought in order to do it.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how I didn't listen to what you said. How have I misrepresented your argument? Your argument was perfectly clear from the presentation, and it is your presentation I am responding to, not anything else you have posted on the web. In your argument you clearly claimed that these men were not deciphering (i.e translating) anything. The Facsimile explanation disproves this thoroughly.

At any rate, is it really possible that Graham has missed the fact that I have repeatedly mentioned that character #67 (Iota ni tah veh ah que – "I saw twenty-five persons") is an explicit[i/] example of where Phelps used the Egyptian Counting system in the manner for which it was desgined?

Again, how does this change the fact that you flat out denied that the Facsimile explanation, containing the Egyptian Counting document word "eh," has any relationship to the Egyptian Counting document? You don't explain.

Is it really possible that Graham doesn't understand that, to the extent the Egyptian Counting system is used in the GAEL, it confirms my thesis of its function as a translation key?

You argued for a cipher key, multiple times. In fact you mention it more than 90 times, but only mention "translation key" once, and you do so in the context of explaining it as a cipher key. Here are your exact comments:

Obviously Phelps introduced dozens more characters when he built the “pure language cipher” table for the Egyptian Alphabet, but the presence of these six characters from his earlier specimen confirms the evidence already adduced that a cipher key is precisely what these documents are designed to be. They would no doubt have called it a “translation key,” or something like that. In any case, its function is identical to a typical substitution cipher key.

I've been telling people they need to reread what you said, but I never thought I'd have to tell you this too. You only said that they would have called a cipher key, a translation key. Now you're saying you've been arguing for translation key all along. So which is it Will?

Unfortunately for the strength of my thesis, the additional examples Graham's provides are not very persuasive ones. If they had been, I would have cited them myself!

You do not understand the significance of the degrees, or notice that as the degree changes, the numerical meaning is minimized to the point that it is completely absent.

Graham does give one glaring example of how he simply is not familiar with the source materials. He is so accustomed to relying on his little set of talking points that he can copy and paste from place to place that he has obviously never really taken the time to actually examine the material itself!

On the contrary, I was typing this stuff out from Michael Marquardt's critical text, while juggling household duties including two kids. I admit I was just typing away without putting much thought into this. I was just trying to provide the "eh" examples with their corresponding translations. But that is why I said from the beginning that this wasn't a perfect list and there could be errors. But the overall point remains even without the Sue e eh ni example. To prove it, I just edited that example out of my post and the point remains. But I am a humored that once you finally find an error, you suddenly drop all your previous excuses for ignoring me and spend a great deal of time focusing on that single, irrelevant mistake, use it to prove how ignorant I am, and then continue on as if you've somehow refuted my counterargument.

So you now claim you've been arguing "translation key" all along, but your presentation says otherwise. You can't run away from your own documented statements, Will. You can change your mind if you want, but please don't blame others when you do. Why don't you edit your presentation to properly represent yourcurrent views?

But now that you are apparently energized and prepared to type out a lot of text, is there any chance you plan on responding to the numerous evidences, questions, previous arguments, etc., that I have presented in this thread?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Will, it is fine that you raise the Phah-eh example, but you completely misunderstand that it was a translation not a cipher. The Facimile explanation including multiple words from the GAEL and Alphabet documents demonstrate why this wasn't a cipher. It must have been understood as a literal TRANSLATION (i.el deciphering!) And as I already pointed out, Joseph Smith clearly states that this was a legitimate concept understood by the Egyptian people. You still have not overcome this hurdle. You're focusing on a minor transcription error to avoid dealing with errors of your own that are far more serious and even detrimental to your thesis.

Here is what we agree to be Joseph Smith's canonized revelation of explanation #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."

And then explanation #5:

"Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."

How do you explain a cipher with the fact that the these "Egyptian" concepts come straight from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language? How do you explain Parrish's later emendation which inserted "Kolob" given your insistence that this was all Phelps's doing?

And these published revelations.... what did you say the purpose was for having them encrypted?

That's right. You didn't.

Would you mind?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

You are talking about two types of "nonsense" here. The first kind of "nonsense" is the nonsense of using something like the EA/GAEL as a cipher key. It is nonsense because it is useless as a cipher key,..

To show that you are the one talking nonsense, I will post this encrypted message using EC/EA/GAEL phonemes. I suspect that Will and George Miller can understand it if no one else can (hopefully they remember to read from right to left):

es eh beth eh zip zi veh iota

Here is another ciphered message:

Floeese toan oan au-gue psa-tah-veh iota

(Note: For Kevin's benefit, please realize that I used the EC/EA/GAEL to encipher the coded message above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 8, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

Quick poll: who here unequivocally states that the purpose of the GAEL was intended to be used to take new, original English text and encipher/encode it?

Please keep answers short so as to ensure a clear answer in the affirmative or negative.

Thank you.

[floatingboy]

To show that you are the one talking nonsense, I will post this encrypted message using EC/EA/GAEL phonemes. I suspect that Will and George Miller can understand it if no one else can (hopefully they remember to read from right to left):

es eh beth eh zip zi veh iota

Here is another ciphered message:

Floeese toan oan au-gue psa-tah-veh iota

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's another:

Todo esto es una pérdida de tiempo.

(I've just enciphered English into Spanish! I just used the cipher key I have in my brain.)

Edited December 8, 2011 by floatingboy

[William Schryver]

To show that you are the one talking nonsense, I will post this encrypted message using EC/EA/GAEL phonemes. I suspect that Will and George Miller can understand it if no one else can (hopefully they remember to read from right to left):

es eh beth eh zip zi veh iota

Here is another ciphered message:

Floeese toan oan au-gue psa-tah-veh iota

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly!

The gratifying thing to me is that when someone really undertakes to examine and think about the source materials--even if they are hampered by the limitations of what is currently available (e.g. the Tanner transcriptions of the GAEL and the handful of things I have made available online)--they invariably come to see that the theses I have proposed are plainly consistent with the evidence. Wade, my friend, you have made more of an effort than anyone else I know to really inform yourself concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting manuscripts. Consequently, you've really begun to "get it". I can't wait to put in your hands the full body of my research into these things, because I believe you (and others, without a doubt) will not only affirm my findings, but also observe things that have eluded me. The more eyes looking at this stuff, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I very much look forward to the time when Dan McClellan gets a chance to delve into this material much more deeply than he has. I'm confident that Dan will be able to bring to bear the eye of the formally trained text critic and produce a whole new perspective on these things than what I have done.

I enthusiastically invite others to do what you have done, Wade. As you have discovered, people needn't be intimidated by this stuff. All you have to do is take a little time to think and explore! I am more than willing to assist and answer questions from anyone who sincerely desires to commence a serious examination of these things.

The world of Mormon studies has been subjected to a boat load of misinformation (and downright deception!) about these materials for almost fifty ("tah veh") years. But the times ... they are a changin'! It might take another five ("veh") or ten ("tah") years for the last of the false notions to be cast into the dust bin of history, but it will happen.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread to you now and see if I can't finish extracting the portion of my book chapter (William Wines Phelps - Linguist and Translator) that I am willing to, at this point in time, publicize via message board. Hopefully, I'll start that new thread before the end of the day today ...

Edited December 8, 2011 by William Schryver

[Nomad]

Exactly!

The gratifying thing to me is that when someone really undertakes to examine and think about the source materials--even if they are hampered by the limitations of what is currently available (e.g. the Tanner transcriptions of the GAEL and the handful of things I have made available online)--they invariably come to see that the theses I have proposed are plainly consistent with the evidence. Wade, my friend, you have made more of an effort than anyone else I know to really inform yourself concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting manuscripts. Consequently, you've really begun to "get it". I can't wait to put in your hands the full body of my research into these things, because I believe you (and others, without a doubt) will not only affirm my findings, but also observe things that have eluded me. The more eyes looking at this stuff, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I very much look forward to the time when Dan McClellan gets a chance to delve into this material much more deeply than he has. I'm confident that Dan will be able to bring to bear the eye of the formally trained text critic and produce a whole new perspective on these things than what I have done.

I enthusiastically invite others to do what you have done, Wade. As you have discovered, people needn't be intimidated by this stuff. All you have to do is take a little time to think and explore! I am more than willing to assist and answer questions from anyone who sincerely desires to commence a serious examination of these things.

The world of Mormon studies has been subjected to a boat load of misinformation (and downright deception!) about these materials for almost fifty ("tah veh") years. But the times ... they are a changin'! It might take another five ("veh") or ten ("tah") years for the last of the false notions to be cast into the dust bin of history, but it will happen.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread to you now and see if I can't finish extracting the portion of my book chapter (William Wines Phelps - Linguist and Translator) that I am willing to, at this point in time, publicize via message board. Hopefully, I'll start that new thread before the end of the day today ...

I don't have the patience for these message boards anymore, especially that place on the other side of the tracks.

In fact, I thought you were swearing off them too! What happened? Do you need an intervention? It all starts with admitting to yourself that you have a problem.

Anywho ... as you know I spent some time earlier this year looking into the documentation you sent to me, and I agree that if one just takes a little time to really check into things closely, it all starts to make sense. Well, not really make sense in the sense that it really makes sense, but make sense in the sense that you can see that EAG is dependent on the BoA already being written down and that the whole idea of the project was to be a system for authoring something new. There's a part of the fifth degree methodology gibberish that, if you think about what it is saying, it's clear that Phelps is talking about how someone (the "writer") would use the thing to produce something. It reads:

But whenever the character is

found with one horizontal line, as at (2) the

subject must be continued until <five times> twice the number

of connecting parts of speech are used; or, the

full sense of the writer is not conveyed.

If you think about how that is worded, you can see that he's obviously talking about how someone ("the writer") is supposed to use the system to produce something. Of course, the whole thing is ridiculous and it could never really be used to produce anything coherent. But you can see what the intention was all the same.

OK, that's my 2¢, and all you're going to get from me. My message boarding (kind of like water boarding, if you ask me) days have come to an end ........................... more or less.

But as your favorite "sock puppet" , I expect to get a free copy of your book when if finally comes out! I can't afford to be funding the lavish lifestyle of a high-roller Mormon apologist.

[wenglund]

Technically you are correct, it is nonsensical on both counts. However, we know that Joseph Smith understood Egyptian in this way becauseDavid Whitmer describes his translation of the "reformed Egyptian," saying "frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript."

And since we agree that they must have been doing one or the other, the question now becomes rather simple. Which is more likely? There is no system in place that would support William's argument that they were enciphering tons of English texts into small amounts of graphemes or syllables. But if they were trying to "decipher" an Ancient text via revelation, they could produce something like this without needing to explain the mechanics of it all. It is just there because God told him that's what it meant in that "degree."

Kevin,

It doesn't appear that you are thinking this through very well. The EA/GAEL is the system for both enciphering and deciphering large amounts to text. It isn't one or the other. As such, the question before us isn't so much whether the EA/GAEL is meant to encipher or decipher large amounts of text (since it is a system to do both), but rather whether it was meant to encipher/decipher old or new material, past or future texts.

The syllogism I compassionately reconstructed makes a reasonable case that the EA/GAEL was meant to encipher/decipher new material and not old texts, or if you prefer, it was meant to be a "translation key" for future texts and not ancient material like the papyri. Do you now understand?

By the way, I am still waiting to hear whether you agree or not with each of the points of the syllogism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here's another: Todo esto es una pérdida de tiempo. (I've just enciphered English into Spanish! I just used the cipher key I have in my brain.)

If people like Kevin and Cobalt-70 were denying that English-to-Spanish dictionaries couldn't be used to encipher texts (as they were with the EA/GAEL), then you may have a point. Since they aren't, then you don't. Rather, you evidently missed the point of my exercise. And, that is okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 8, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Quick poll: who here unequivocally states that the purpose of the GAEL was intended to be used to take new, original English text and encipher/encode it?

I don't think there was a single purpose for the EA/GAEL (the purpose or purposes may have changed as the project progressed and as collaborators provided input).

I will say, mildly equivocally, that one of the purposes was to, for the then future, encipher/decipher, encode/decode, and "translate" English into "Egyptian" (or "pure language").

I hope that was brief enough.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 8, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Just for fun, and to reinforce my earlier point, I have used the EA/GAEL to encipher a new coded message from English into "Egyptian," but this time I will use characters instead of sounds. See if you can figure out the message (I bet Chris Smith can):

(Remember to read from right to left)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

denying that English-to-Spanish dictionaries couldn't be used

I don't understand your post. Is this supposed to be a double negative? If so, then by "denying that EtoS dictionaries couldn't be used" you mean "affirming that they could be used"?

I will say, mildly equivocally, that one of the purposes was to, for the then future, encipher/decipher, encode/decode, and "translate" English into "Egyptian" (or "pure language").

Does that mean that you think they weren't able to see from the start that such a method of enciphering would be, in Will's words, "impracticable"? That this dawned on them sometime later?

[wenglund]

I don't understand your post. Is this supposed to be a double negative? If so, then by "denying that EtoS dictionaries couldn't be used" you mean "affirming that they could be used"?

Sorry for the double negative. It should read: "...denying that English-to-Spanish dictionaries could be used.."

Does that mean that you think they weren't able to see from the start that such a method of enciphering would be, in Will's words, "impracticable"? That this dawned on them sometime later?

Yes, and for good reason. The impracticality that Will is referring to didn't really come into play, or become evident, particularly in relation to the use of phonemes, until after work had ceased on the EA and development begun on the GAEL. Even then things may not have appeared entirely impractical until the project had progressed to the GAEL fifth degree, where not only were the explanations unwieldy but the grammar was, as Will pointed out, impossible.

We get a sense that Phelps may have recognized this around that point in the project because in Part 2 of the GAEL he didn't set forth any grammar, and for the most part instead of breaking down each character into five degrees, he rotated each successive character through the five degrees.

At a later time, even that may have seemed too daunting, and so he bagged the grammar altogether, along with the sounds, and simply associated characters with large texts in the fifth degree--see Abr. Mss. numbers 1 - 3.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 8, 2011 by wenglund

[floatingboy]

gotcha. well, i wasn't basing my comparison to spanish (or any other language translation) on anything kevin or cobalt-70 said. i still maintain that if you develop (or simply learn) a lexicon in another language and then use that language to express an idea, sure, it can mean "encoding" in a broad sense, but not in a cryptological sense. if you're only arguing for the broad sense, i would suggest not using the word "encipher" because it's a loaded term. if all anyone has ever meant by "encipher" is essentially "translate", then it has led us on a whole wild-goose-chase of a conversation here.

just curious, what do you see as an end game here? are you essentially arguing that the KEP, although surely related in some ways to the papyri, was essentially a project that stood on its own and therefore the text of the BofA owes nothing to it? or if there is dependence, it's that the KEP relies on BofA text in order to help decipher the then dead language of Egyptian?

[floatingboy]

as for your encrypted messages, a question: is there only one interpretation of them? i have put very little time into looking at the GAEL, so i have a question: is the fact that "veh" comes after "iota" significant? does it modify "iota" or "zip zi"? or does it merely mean "five"?

[wenglund]

gotcha. well, i wasn't basing my comparison to spanish (or any other language translation) on anything kevin or cobalt-70 said.

Okay. I thought you were responding to what I posted, which was based on what Kevin and Cobalt-70 had said (it was an object lesson that underscored my point and contravened theirs).

i still maintain that if you develop (or simply learn) a lexicon in another language and then use that language to express an idea, sure, it can mean "encoding" in a broad sense, but not in a cryptological sense.

It depends upon whether all those who are made privy to the "encoding," readily have the means to "decode." If they don't, then any language under those circumstances can be used cryptographically. For example, Navaho Indians were used during WWII as "Code Talkers" because the enemy was unlikely to know the Navaho language.

And, given that you haven't broken my "Egyptian" code, that underscores my point--not only that the EA/GAEL could be used to "encipher," but also be used cryptographically, and this contrary to what Kevin and Cobalt-70 have suggested.

The next object lesson I posted, was to demonstrate the same principles, but also this time with EA/GAEL characters, and where I used just three characters to encipher several paragraphs of texts--something Kevin and Cobalt-70 said couldn't be done. Yet, I was able to do just that. [thumbs up]

if you're only arguing for the broad sense, i would suggest not using the word "encipher" because it's a loaded term. if all anyone has ever meant by "encipher" is essentially "translate", then it has led us on a whole wild-goose-chase of a conversation here.

I explained earlier in the thread why I used the word "encipher," and that is because the word "translation" tends not to be direction-specific, and since in some respects the direction of the translation is pertinent to what is being argued, it seemed most reasonable to me to use encipher or decipher instead.

I believe the same applies in Will's case, particularly in his attempt to make the case for "enciphering" going from the Counting document to the EA/GAEL. This is key to understanding how the Phelps project developed and the dependency of the EA/GAEL on preexisting texts--which in turn speaks somewhat to the question of the intent and purpose of the EA/GAEL, though perhaps more so to what their purpose wasn't.

Besides, I also do not wish to entirely rule out cryptography as a possible usage, particularly in relation to the EA/GAEL.

just curious, what do you see as an end game here? are you essentially arguing that the KEP, although surely related in some ways to the papyri, was essentially a project that stood on its own and therefore the text of the BofA owes nothing to it?

My end game is to let the data take me wherever it goes and to share that with others. However, the more I research the EA/GAEL, the stronger I have become in my conviction that the text of the BoA owes nothing to the EA/GAEL. Interesting enough, the critics, as a group, are headed in that direction as well, having gone from thinking that a chapter and a half of the BoA was owed to the EA/GAEL, to now thinking that only a handful of verses are owed to it. I see it as my duty, as a friend, to take them the rest of the way so as to help them avoid wasting any more of their time in that vain pursuit, and direct their attention where it may do more good.

...or if there is dependence, it's that the KEP relies on BofA text in order to help decipher the then dead language of Egyptian?

I haven't entirely ruled that out. Again, I don't think there was just one purpose behind the project. To me, it was an eclectic enterprise, somewhat reflecting the personality of its primary instigator, W.W. Phelps.

Also, as intimated above, unlike some good folks here, I am not cemented to any theory either way. I came into this discussion several years ago determined to let the evidence pretty much take me wherever it may. And, while it has certainly taken me fairly confidently in my current direction, if new information and more persuasive argumentation surfaces, I have no problem doing an about face. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 8, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

as for your encrypted messages, a question: is there only one interpretation of them? i have put very little time into looking at the GAEL, so i have a question: is the fact that "veh" comes after "iota" significant? does it modify "iota" or "zip zi"? or does it merely mean "five"?

It means "five" (that is, unless it is connected to other phonemes by a hyphen, then it may mean a multiple of five). Also, when phonemes are connected by a hyphen, they are to be read as a composite sound.

However, like with words in most any language, certain sounds can have multiple meanings, and so in some cases the meaning may be determined by the context of the sentence. I will tell you that the phoneme "eh" may in some cases mean "in".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[floatingboy]

if you had typed a phrase in russian or german or chinese, i would be in the same boat, provided that i didn't use translation software. the fact that i don't know for sure what you intend to say is not due to the fact that you have used a cipher as opposed to a foreign language.

[floatingboy]

It means "five" (that is, unless it is connected to other phonemes by a hyphen, then it may mean a multiple of five). Also, when phonemes are connected by a hyphen, they are to be read as a composite sound.

However, like with words in most any language, certain sounds can have multiple meanings, and so in some cases the meaning may be determined by the context of the sentence. I will tell you that the phoneme "eh" may in some cases mean "in".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

so "zip zi veh iota" is not different from "zip zi iota veh"? or if so, does that mean that "veh" or "five" is interacting with the words around it in different ways? i ask because the latter is directly from the GAEL, and is translated as "i see five women". does yours mean something different?

Edited December 8, 2011 by floatingboy

[William Schryver]

i still maintain that if you develop (or simply learn) a lexicon in another language and then use that language to express an idea, sure, it can mean "encoding" in a broad sense, but not in a cryptological sense. if you're only arguing for the broad sense, i would suggest not using the word "encipher" because it's a loaded term. if all anyone has ever meant by "encipher" is essentially "translate", then it has led us on a whole wild-goose-chase of a conversation here.

"You people" are really taking the notion of "playing dumb" to unprecedented heights.

It would be one thing to claim a misunderstanding if this were still August 2010; if it were still in the days and weeks following my original presentation. But it's almost 2012, and I have clarified my arguments so many times in the past year and a half that there is, in my judgment, no longer any reason for misunderstanding to persist—except to prop up the strawman that Graham and others erected back in August 2010.

In the first place, I think I explained things satisfactorily in my original presentation:

Simply put, the evidence strongly suggests that these documents were never designed as a tool to translate the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith did that by revelation. Rather, 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.”

Let me repeat and emphasize the important concept:

… 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.

I appreciate better now that, despite the fact that I felt the explanation of my argument was satisfactory, many people—not just critics—misunderstood what I was trying to say vis-à-vis a "cipher key." That is why I have repeatedly sought, in the past year and a half, to disabuse the public mind of the misconceptions arising from my employment of the term "cipher." The term, as I employed it, in the context of my argument, is absolutely correct. But I may increasingly move to avoiding the use of the term "cipher key" and instead exclusively use "translation key" when I speak of the EC/EA/GAEL manuscripts.*

Even so, I'm rather certain that the apostate horde will continue to nurture their beloved "cipher strawman," since it is the only way they can hope to compete in this debate.

At any rate, I would like to close this post by quoting again from my original presentation, emphasizing again my primary thesis, and what I repeatedly referred to as "the essential element of understanding" when it comes to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers:

… regardless of what their underlying purpose was in producing these materials, the “essential element of understanding” concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is that they are dependent on the Book of Abraham—and not the other way around.

Contrary to what has been commonly believed for the past forty years, the evidence strongly suggests that nothing in the collection of documents known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was used in the translation of the Book of Abraham. All of these materials come afterwards and are substantially dependent on a pre-existing text of the book.

The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as D&C 7: by revelation.

There is no evidence that he attempted any sort of what we would term an “academic translation” of Egyptian papyri. The textual evidence simply will not support such a thesis. The purpose of the Alphabet and Grammar materials was extraneous to the papyri.

The essential element of understanding is that recognizing the dependent relationship of the Alphabet and Grammar materials to the previously received text of the Book of Abraham is the primary key to understanding the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

* = (Incidentally, I see Graham reports above that I used the word "ciper," or its variants, "more than 90 times" in my presentation. He really struggles with accuracy. I just did a count using the MSWord word-count utility. There are 68 instances, not 90.)

[William Schryver]

On another note, I was alerted to the latest ritualistic round of Schryver-bashing going on in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©. The tribe has gathered from far and wide, formed into their customary circle, and they are chanting in unison: "Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill …"

In fact, I have secret informant who just managed to smuggle out some video:

GSTP Cannibal Ritual

Thank goodness it's too dark to see detail!

At any rate, they are, as is their wont, consumed in an orgy of mockery, ridicule, and blood-thristy anticipation on account of my having mentioned that I planned to post a partial extract from my forthcoming book on the Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting manuscripts. Therefore, I have decided that I will deprive them of their desires—at least for the time being.

I may very well share it with Wade, and perhaps a few others. But the reaction of the hyenas at the GSTP has made me better appreciate "George Miller's" posture about pre-releasing his stuff via message board. I think Miller's approach might be a good example for me to follow when it comes to my research as well.

Edited December 8, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

This is absolutely true.

The Egyptian Counting document is, for all intents and purposes, a functioning cipher key. Its use is demonstrated in the GAEL. The GAEL, on the other hand, although its format resembles the counting document; although its format is typical of a cipher key, is not a practicable system. Even if one made a valiant attempt to strictly follow Phelps's stated rules for its use (which, ironically, not even Phelps himself does!) it would be impossible to use the GAEL in the fashion for which it was designed: to render long passages of English text in the form of a handful of ostensibly "Egyptian" characters.

So it sounds like you are putting your eggs in the Egyptian Counting document basket now, but are still claiming that the GAEL was "intended" to be a cipher key, but using it for such would have been impossible. Why then, would they do it? Assuming, as I think you believe, that Smith and/or Phelps were familiar with functional and useful Masonic substitution ciphers, why would they attempt to create such an absurdly impractical cipher key in the form of the GAEL? Were they just not very smart?

[William Schryver]

So it sounds like you are putting your eggs in the Egyptian Counting document basket now, but are still claiming that the GAEL was "intended" to be a cipher key, but using it for such would have been impossible. Why then, would they do it? Assuming, as I think you believe, that Smith and/or Phelps were familiar with functional and useful Masonic substitution ciphers, why would they attempt to create such an absurdly impractical cipher key in the form of the GAEL? Were they just not very smart?

As I have made perfectly clear, over and over and over and over, Phelps's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language is an absurdly impracticable translation system.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I have made perfectly clear, over and over and over and over, Phelps's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language is an absurdly impracticable translation system.

I thought you also mentioned that that is probably why the abandoned it and because it did not work.