KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_William Schryver]

Joseph's belief that the Freemasonry was ancient (as opposed to Phelps's published belief that Freemasonry had no ancient origins) makes it much more likely that it was Joseph that made the claim that these characters were associated with the ancient Adamic language. The presence of the Royal Arch cipher characters on the Anthon transcript excludes the possibility that Joseph would have gotten this idea from Phelps. If Joseph had this idea in the late 1820s then I find it highly likely it was Joseph (not Phelps) that included these characters in the the specimen. I am well aware that the specimen appears in a letter from Phelps to his wife. I have no confidence in the supposition that because it is contained in a letter from Phelps to his wife, that this means it was Phelps who was the one who instigated the placement of these figures next to the Adamic translations into English.

I was actually going to parse this post and reply in detail.

And then I changed my mind.

You'll certainly be welcome to argue anything you'd like, and even to research, write, and publish a full contradiction of my findings. I look forward to it.

[_William Schryver]

Will you say above that you have "never argued that Phelps 'independently' provided the characters in question". So let me ask you do you think Phelps "independently" came up with these characters or was their addition at least partially dependent on Joseph Smith?

Considering Phelps's letter in isolation, there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. That said, it is irrelevant to my explanatory theses vis-a-vis the KEP.

You also claim that W. W. Phelps was the primary innovator. I am interested what role you think Joseph played in this project? Personally, I think he instigated, participated, and led the project. Phelps probably worked in an advisory role and as Joseph's scribe.

I acknowledge that you "personally ... think" these things.

I encourage you to develop a case, based in the text critical and historical evidence, that will support your thoughts.

I, personally, have already assembled a considerable body of evidence that suggests William Phelps was the primary innovator and the driving force behind the Egyptian Alphabet project. Furthermore, I am not working in a vacuum. I have shared a significant amount of that evidence with others whom I believe very qualified to assess it. I am extremely encouraged by their reactions to the case I have made to date. I trust that their assessment of the arguments and evidence will be consistent with that of most people who are not already strongly committed to an alternative scenario.

[_beastie]

Did or did not Nibley's theory entail positing that the Alphabet and Grammar were intended as a tool to decipher the papyri?

[_George Miller]

You'll certainly be welcome to argue anything you'd like, and even to research, write, and publish a full contradiction of my findings. I look forward to it.

I appreciate your giving me your blessing to continue with my research and to publish. I look forward to seeing you publish on the matter :-)

Considering Phelps's letter in isolation, there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Luckily I don't have to consider Phelp's letter in isolation ;-)

That said, it is irrelevant to my explanatory theses vis-à-vis the KEP.

Ahh I see ... So if Joseph was the one that told Phelps to put the Royal Arch cipher characters next to the Adamic language characters that has no bearing on what Joseph may have done with the KEP.

[_Paul Osborne]

Maybe you're right. Have any apologists responded to this, or do they ignore it?

Beastie,

The apologists have avoided the black slave of Facsimile No. 3 at all cost. They don't know what to make of it while they burn their minds with that hot iron of denial.

Look, not even William Ass is going to defend Joseph Smith's stupid revelation. William is many things but he is not stupid. What Joseph Smith did with regards to Facsimile No. 3, moreover the little black guy, was just stupid. It was human nature and an opportunity for an ignorant prophet-man to make a big splash. But we see Joseph Smith was all wet. Little wonder why I'm so glad he got his ass tarred and feathered. He deserved it. He was a filthy liar and deserved to be smacked down and fall from the window.

Good shot, boys! Kill him!

Paul

[_William Schryver]

GM:

So if Joseph was the one that told Phelps to put the Royal Arch cipher characters next to the Adamic language characters that has no bearing on what Joseph may have done with the KEP.

I neither said nor implied that.

I did say it would be irrelevant to my theses of the meaning and purpose of the KEP.

While I am persuaded that Phelps's was the dominant role in this project, the evidence for the dependency of the A&G on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham is not related to the question of authorial primacy. And, as I have reiterated multiple times, it is the dependency of the A&G on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham that is, far and away, the "essential element of understanding" when it comes to the meaning and purpose of the KEP.

All other considerations are secondary.

[Guest]

Will,

I'm still trying to understand the "why's", 3rd request?

Why a need for the Book of Abraham to be coded from Egyptian when no one could read Egyptian in the first place?


MG

[_Paul Osborne]

Good shot, boys! Kill him!

Of course you realize this is just hyperbole designed to stir emotion.

Paul O

[_William Schryver]

Will,

I'm still trying to understand the "why's", 3rd request?

Why a need for the Book of Abraham to be coded from Egyptian when no one could read Egyptian in the first place?


MG

The misunderstanding of my arguments inherent in your question is such that it would require far too much of my time to get you "straightened out" on the matter, so I have ignored you and will no doubt continue to do so.

I will say this (as I repeatedly emphasized in my FAIR address): the EA/GAEL/EC/Ab documents in the KEP have the intended effective function of a cipher key. However, they did not, by any means (with the possible exception of the counting document), constitute an effective (or, in other words, practical) cipher, nor do I believe that the authors thereof would have used the term "cipher" to describe their project. Rather, they would have termed it a "translation key." Nevertheless, they clearly intended to produce a set of "translation keys" that worked from the direction of blocks of pre-existing English texts to a set of arbitrarily selected/invented characters, which is precisely what a substitution cipher is designed to do.

As to your specific question: "Why a need for the Book of Abraham to be coded from Egyptian when no one could read Egyptian in the first place?"

Ironically enough, your question proves my point. There would have been no need to encipher the Book of Abraham if it only existed in the form of Egyptian text. It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation) that the need for encipherment arose. As for the motivation to encipher what were perceived as sensitive elements of Joseph Smith's previously received revelations--well, that is quite well established.

At any rate, we return again to what I have described as the "essential elements of understanding" concerning the KEP: one cannot come to comprehend the meaning and purpose of the KEP without first recognizing their dependency on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

[_Paul Osborne]

Will,

I'm still trying to understand the "why's", 3rd request?

Why a need for the Book of Abraham to be coded from Egyptian when no one could read Egyptian in the first place?


MG

The misunderstanding of my arguments inherent in your question is such that it would require far too much of my time to get you "straightened out" on the matter, so I have ignored you and will no doubt continue to do so.

I will say this (as I repeatedly emphasized in my FAIR address): the EA/GAEL/EC/Ab documents in the KEP have the intended effective function of a cipher key. However, they did not, by any means (with the possible exception of the counting document), constitute an effective (or, in other words, practical) cipher, nor do I believe that the authors thereof would have used the term "cipher" to describe their project. Rather, they would have termed it a "translation key." Nevertheless, they clearly intended to produce a set of "translation keys" that worked from the direction of blocks of pre-existing English texts to a set of arbitrarily selected/invented characters, which is precisely what a substitution cipher is designed to do.

As to your specific question: "Why a need for the Book of Abraham to be coded from Egyptian when no one could read Egyptian in the first place?"

Ironically enough, your question proves my point. There would have been no need to encipher the Book of Abraham if it only existed in the form of Egyptian text. It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation) that the need for encipherment arose. As for the motivation to encipher what were perceived as sensitive elements of Joseph Smith's previously received revelations--well, that is quite well established.

At any rate, we return again to what I have described as the "essential elements of understanding" concerning the KEP: one cannot come to comprehend the meaning and purpose of the KEP without first recognizing their dependency on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Did somebody say something? There must be an echo or perhaps a plane is flying overhead.

Hmm.

Paul O