KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Markk]

I don't know the answer to this, but how was Joseph Smith earning a living at this time, How was he providing for his family? Were phelps and the others paid for their work or did they have day jobs?

Bushman's biography for this period says something like, "How Joseph supported himself during this period is a mystery. His journal contains no references to working...," etc. Maybe I'll look for the quote later.

Were the others paid for their work?

Joseph Smith seems to be like Ozzie Nelson, in that no buddy know what he did for a living. I think a very plausible motivation for Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham and the KEP is money. Makes more sense than a code for a language that no one could read in the first place.

MG

[_Markk]

Hi wade,

There is no way that I can know to a certainty that they weren't a part of a business, any more than I can know for a certainty that they weren't aliens from outer space.

Lol, Joseph Smith being a con is held by many with evidence to support this opinion, from well digging to bank failure...hardly in the same category as aliens.

Since the KEP were never used to make money or to convert people to the restored gospel, I see no reason (emotional or otherwise) to think they had anything to do with business.

It was never finished, and the Book of Abraham was a testimony, and any work to it certainly brought converts into the fold...come on Wade, right or wrong it is certainly a possibility to consider.

Then make your case.

It makes sense, and can be backed up with indisputable evidence that men produce cons to make money while deceiving people. I can not think of one reason while Joseph Smith, or God, would produce a code for a language that nobody could read in the first place?

Wade why was the code produced, to keep Anthon from reading the words of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses? Let me know why you believe it was produced?

I can't answer that since I haven't looked into the question--in large part because it isn't relevant to my current pursuit. Since it is a question that is more pertant to your "scenerio", please let us know when you find out the answer.

I'm open to your scenario, why the need for a code. My scenario has precedence, yours does not?

Take Care Wade

MG

[_CaliforniaKid]

I have never thought nor claimed that Joseph borrowed the Mosonic characters to produce the Anthon transcript (I am assuming you are speaking here about the real Anthon transcript and not the dubious ones from Whitmer or Hofmann), nor would I. So, your question is better addressed to someone who agrees with your presuppositions. Sorry.

Wait... I thought we agreed that at least some of the supposedly Masonic characters in the EAG also appear on the Anthon transcript, right? And I thought you were saying those characters were borrowed from the Masonic cipher?

[_beastie]

I’m going to try, once again, to help Wade see the weakness of his theory.

Let’s pretend I’m going to make a secret code. I want to pick out neat looking figures for my secret code, and pick out such figures from different sources. One such source is a genuine Egyptian papyri, so I use some of those figures, along with others I pick up elsewhere. I use them in a grid for my secret code.

Now, according to Wade, no one could feasibly believe that my secret code contained some genuine Egyptian figures because I had mixed them with other elements and was using them in a grid-like code. In fact, if such a person were collecting genuine Egyptian figures for some purpose, there is no way that they would select those genuine Egyptian figures from my secret code to be used in such a collection – all because I used the figures mixed in with others in a grid-like code.

Get it now, Wade?

[_wenglund]

Wait... I thought we agreed that at least some of the supposedly Masonic characters in the EAG also appear on the Anthon transcript, right? And I thought you were saying those characters were borrowed from the Masonic cipher?

What I agree with is that some of the characters in Whitmer's "Anthon Caracters", as well as the Tironian notes, are somewhat similar to those in the Egytian Counting document.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Nomad]

I’m going to try, once again, to help Wade see the weakness of his theory.

Let’s pretend I’m going to make a secret code. I want to pick out neat looking figures for my secret code, and pick out such figures from different sources. One such source is a genuine Egyptian papyri, so I use some of those figures, along with others I pick up elsewhere. I use them in a grid for my secret code.

Now, according to Wade, no one could feasibly believe that my secret code contained some genuine Egyptian figures because I had mixed them with other elements and was using them in a grid-like code. In fact, if such a person were collecting genuine Egyptian figures for some purpose, there is no way that they would select those genuine Egyptian figures from my secret code to be used in such a collection – all because I used the figures mixed in with others in a grid-like code.

Get it now, Wade?

It's pretty obvious that you are the one that doesn't "get it."

lol!

I’ve been away from this madhouse for the past several days, and I haven’t even missed it. Imagine that!

But I’ve now scanned (very unattentively, I might add) through a number of the posts over the past few days, and I must confess that I’m confused as to why beastie and others think it matters at all if these guys in Kirtland believed that the Masonic cipher characters were Egyptian?

In other words, why do you think this has any bearing at all on the Schryver thesis of the KEP? As I understand it, his point is simply that EAG stuff wasn’t an attempt to translate the papyri. The characters given explanations, with some exceptions, don’t even come from the papyri. Those that do come from the papyri are selected arbitrarily. Some of the characters are from the Masonic cipher. Some bear a resemblance to characters from the Anthon manuscript.

So what?

The point is that they aren’t from the papyri!

These guys weren’t making the EAG in order to translate papyri.

The characters they used were selected arbitrarily.

Who cares whether or not they believed they were Egyptian? It doesn’t matter to either the dependency thesis, or the cipher thesis.

I have seen very little evidence that anyone on this message board (except people like wenglund and maklelan) even understands Schryver’s arguments well enough to speak intelligently about them. And that includes California Kid, who has been one of the main people behind this red herring line of argumentation. I think it’s funny as can be that the exmos have anointed him and Kevin Graham as their “experts” on the KEP when it’s so obvious that neither one of them knows what they’re talking about. I read through Smith’s Abr. 1:1-3 paper again over the weekend. What a specimen of so-called “scholarship”!!!! Really? The EAG was created to translate a single paragraph, and then they decided to do something different? I started making a list of bald assertions from the paper, but I finally gave up after about a dozen or so. It is comforting to know that Smith represents the future of Book of Abraham criticism. The only thing that could be better is if Graham and Osborn can get themselves published, too.

[_Darth J]

I have seen very little evidence that anyone on this message board (except people like wenglund and maklelan) even understands Schryver’s arguments well enough to speak intelligently about them. And that includes California Kid, who has been one of the main people behind this red herring line of argumentation. I think it’s funny as can be that the exmos have anointed him and Kevin Graham as their “experts” on the KEP when it’s so obvious that neither one of them knows what they’re talking about.

Dear Nomad:

Brother Englund has already conceded that despite his claiming that Schryver's unicorn hunt will help those who fell from the faith see the error of their ways, he cannot name a single person who disbelieves the truth claims of the LDS Chuch because of any particular theory about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Along those same lines, if you are not too busy grandstanding on behalf of your apologist champion, I wonder if you could please list, by name, the ex-Mormons here who have anointed either Chris Smith or Kevin Graham as "their" experts on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[_wenglund]

I’m going to try, once again, to help Wade see the weakness of his theory.

Let’s pretend I’m going to make a secret code. I want to pick out neat looking figures for my secret code, and pick out such figures from different sources. One such source is a genuine Egyptian papyri, so I use some of those figures, along with others I pick up elsewhere. I use them in a grid for my secret code.

Now, according to Wade, no one could feasibly believe that my secret code contained some genuine Egyptian figures because I had mixed them with other elements and was using them in a grid-like code. In fact, if such a person were collecting genuine Egyptian figures for some purpose, there is no way that they would select those genuine Egyptian figures from my secret code to be used in such a collection – all because I used the figures mixed in with others in a grid-like code.

Get it now, Wade?

Yes, I believe I do get it now.

I suppose it is possible that someone might have wanted to construct a grid from which to create her own cipher characters, may have, instead of taking a few moments to simply draw the grid, spent countless hours scour through Egyptian papyri that she may or may not have had in her possession, looking for characters that she could peace together like a puzzle to form the lines of the grid, and once the grid is formed, dissect the grid into characters in such a way as to ignore the underlining Egyptian characters.

Such an enterprise would make no sense whatsoever, but it is remotely possible that someone like you might do this, particularly if she is doing so to create the illusion in her mind of not being wrong on a relatively insignificant point. :)

However, the best way to substantiate your point would be to do, yourself, just as you suggest. I invite you to illustrate your point by utilizing the internet to your advantage, and search through Egyptian papyri and construct a Masonic cipher grid (you can use the one that Chris posted earlier). See if in the process of making the attempt the thought doesn't spring to mind just how highly unlikely such a thing is. I look forward to your results--complete with explanations of what Egyptian characters you used, where you got them from, and where in the grid you placed them. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Dear Nomad and Wade:

I am certainly glad that Fratello Schryver has leaked some new tidbit about his theories to you that have not had a chance to be scrutinized by someone other than a fawning cheerleader, so that you can play your passive-aggressive games and tell everyone who isn't dazzled by Schryver's theories how he or she is just too stupid to understand it.

If you have a moment out of your trumpeting the false dichotomy that if Metcalfe or Kevin Graham are wrong then Schryver must be right, as well as your D-Day-like attack on this non-existent army of straw men who depend on the former two to justify their lack of faith in the LDS Chruch, I wonder if you could answer a question that I asked some time ago and has yet to be addressed:

I'm watching the video for the third time, and there are many assumptions whose basis is not explained.

In the "substantial words study," I enjoyed the tautology that "substantial words" are words that convey "substantial meaning."

Then, around 11:50, we get this:

"Unique" words are asserted to be:
blood
commandments
creation
eternity
follower
glory
government
minister
ordained

"Generic" words are asserted to be:
after
before
end
father
first
God
good
heaven
land

Who decided on this classification (besides Schryver, I mean)? Why is "God" generic? Why is "heaven" generic? Why is "glory" unique? Why are any of the asserted "unique" words unique? There is nothing in the video that suggests that the distinction between "unique" and "generic" is anything but arbitrary.

As Fratello Schryver's emissaries, and seeing as how you both understand his theories in ways that everyone else's Cro-Magnon level intellect could not hope to grasp, perhaps one or both of you can answer this question.

[_wenglund]

Brother Englund has already conceded that despite his claiming that Schryver's unicorn hunt will help those who fell from the faith see the error of their ways, he cannot name a single person who disbelieves the truth claims of the LDS Chuch because of any particular theory about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Precious Darth J,

Are you suggesting that all the time and energy that has been devoted to this topic over the last 40 years by the critics, has had absolutely no delitarious affect whatsoever on the faith of any members or investigators?

Are you saying that the countless hours that were spent by the Tanners, Micheal Marquardt, Clark, Howard, Metcalfe, Graham, Osborne, Smith, and others, has all been for not in terms of criticisms against the Church and its scriptures?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-