DiscussMormonism.com

Wow.

Avatar. Pony tail. Posting style.

C'mon, Nomad. Just 'fess up.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Nomad wrote:?

Are you another one of the WS=Nomad tin foil hat people? LOL!

I had no idea.

No, Mr. Smith, I will not be publishing anything about your JWHA paper, although the more I have investigated the issues it addresses, the more convinced I am that it is a badly conceived and executed piece of faux scholarship. It exhibits no innovative thought and is littered with wild and unsupported speculations. No wonder it was so well received by your fellow critics of Mormonism. You gave them exactly the kind of thing they love. You told them exactly what they wanted to hear.

Still, I wish you well in your chosen profession as a critic of Mormonism. Oh, I know that you are sensitive about being called a “critic” and that you prefer to be called a “student” of Mormonism. Whatever.

Whether student or critic, one thing is perfectly obvious: you cannot address the questions I have posed to you. It has nothing to do with a lack of time or interest. It has to do with the fact that you don’t have the answers, because if you did, I have no doubt you would trot them out as quickly as possible for the benefit of all your fans here in MDB Wonderland.

*shrug*

Authority and audacity aren't required to invent or borrow non-Egyptian characters and sounds, associate them with the English numeric system, and title the document, "Egyptian Counting." If you would like, I can show you that it can be done by doing so myself.

You're focused only on what's technically possible. Is it possible that some idiot besides Joseph Smith thought he could restore lost languages? Sure it is. But there is no evidence to support your claim that Phelps did this. Only Joseph Smith was the "Prophet Seer and Revelator."

Let's say white bird poop drops on your shoulder as a flock of birds fly overhead. Using your logic, it is technically possible that some kid scraped some poo from his parrot's cage and threw it out the window, and it then landed on your shoulder. I have no doubt this is an argument you would fight for if you thought it had any apologetic value for the Church.

Do Phelps' letters to his wife somehow approximate Joseph Smith to them?

Depends what they contain. This is old ground that has been covered already.

Would written copies of Oliver Cowdery's Hebrew translation exercises somehow approximate Joseph Smith to them?

Depends, but probably not. There is nothing supernatural about studying a perfectly translatable language like Hebrew.

Would F.G. Williams' grocery list somehow approximate Joseph Smith to them?

Depends on what was on the list. Did it list a seer stone and Spanish Fly?

None of these documents of Joseph's scribes would be in the handwriting of Joseph Smith, but does that somehow approximate Joseph to them? Of course not. Why? Because in these cases we aren't unwittingly engaging in circular reasoning. We aren't presupposing, based on very weak circumstantial evidence, the very issue that is in question.

Here you go:

These are not in Smith's handwriting.
These did not originate with Smith. Why?
Because these are not in Smith's handwriting.

That is how circular reasoning works, so thanks for the illustration. It is as absurd as saying Bobby didn't kill his wife because his hired Hit Man did it. Phelps was a hired scribe and student of Joseph Smith. There is no evidence Phelps was in the business of restoring the Adamic language on his own. Otherwise why didn't he finish it without Smith?

We know, from the historical record, that Phelps had a personal interest in ancient languages.

So? That doesn't even begin to establish the illicit leap you're making.

He studied them while going to school.

And who taught him the "pure Adamic language"?

He took classes in them around the time of the KEP.

Again, who taught the class on the "pure Adamic language"?

He was particularly fascinated with the notion of a "pure language",

Yes, thanks to Joseph Smith, who was more obsessed with it than anyone.

and spoke in public about it more than anyone else in the church—at least to my knowledge.

To your knowledge? Don't you mean to say this is something you heard Will Schryver assert, and you're just taking it for granted? Either way, we know the whole "pure language" fiasco started with Smith (began in 1830 and he talked about it in more detail in 1832) and it apparently ended with him since no one, including Phelps, tried to finish where he left off.

And, of his own volition, he would pepper correspondences with samples of his knowledge of ancient languages

Which ones? CFR. The fact is Martin Harris also tried to share Joseph Smith's revelations with his wife. So what?

So, you are incorrect about him having no reason or inclination to produce such a text.

Howso? I am also interested in languages, I have studied languages, but I would never propose to restore lost languages unless I believed I had some prophetic ability to do so. Only Joseph Smith claimed that ability, and there are dozens of testimonies throughout history testifying to his alleged ability. No one to testify for "Phelps the divine translator."

On the other hand, there is nothing in the historical record where Joseph makes mention of, let alone expressed interest in working on, the Egyptian Counting document.

Do you really believe Adam didn't use numbers? Joseph Smith endeavored to restore the pure language, and that included numbers. He endeavored to form an Egyptian "Alphabet and Grammar." Now go provide us with a single "Alphabet and Grammar" of any language, that doesn't include numbers. And good luck!

Granted, on several occasions the historical record mentions that Joseph worked on the Egyptian Alphabet, and one of the EA’s is in his handwriting. However, this historical data doesn’t specify what Joseph’s role was in the EA’s production, how extensively he was involved, and most important, what the intent and purpose was for that document.

This is like saying, even though the historical record mentioned a flock of pigeons flying overhead, right at the time of being creamed with poo, the historical data doesn't specify the altitude nor the velocity of the birds. Nor does it specificy anything about their digestive states. Therefore, it is unreasonable to conclude the bird poop came from the flock above.

That is why, nearly two centuries later, we are still debating it. But, this is beside the point of the EC.

Wade, there has been no debate. For two centuries this was never an issue until this past fall Will Schryver made it up as a way to divert from his four year campaign of an upcoming refutation based on "hi-res" scans and textual criticism. That house of cards fell and he needed a backup theory to cover his arse. As far as I can tell, his only loyal followers are you and his sock puppet Nomad. He threw this silly idea out on the table on an online forum and then fled the scene like a scared little mouse once holes started being punched in it. He always does this, relying on his side kicks to stir a ruckus so he can then see if the critics will show our cards before he does another presentation. Seriously, he borrowed some ideas after reading Chris Smith's paper and listening to Sam Brown's presentation. But Brown, a faithful LDS scholar, does not support Will's theory. Brown actually agrees with "the critics" who maintain that Smith supervised the entire project.

Now on to Nimrod the lesser,

In fact, it is right within Ashment’s seminal work Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study that we discover the evidence ofwho is either ignorant or lying. Ashment wrote

Yes, and I already addressed this. Either Ashment misspoke or we're misunderstanding him. I know he has never argued this elsewhere, and in fact plenty of what he has said would seem to run contrary to this.

In fact, this is exactly what Mormon critics have been saying since Ashment’s essay first appeared in 1990 in Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 221-35.

Here you are lying again. Brent Metcalfe, Chris Smith, Andrew Cook and myself have been by practically the full representation of "critics" on this matter over the past decade. Now anyone familiar with our arguments knows we've never argued this. Not once. So you are again lying, but you already knew this.

It is only since Schryver’s FAIR presentation that the critics have suddenly begun to deny ever having made such claims! Ironically enough, this is exactly what Greg Smith predicted would happen!

Greg Smith is a moron who knew the whole thing was a straw man. Again, there are literally hundreds of pages and thousands of posts debating on this subject over at MAD, spanning the past 6 years. Now I challenge you to find a single instance where any of us have argued this.

The fact is we presented our strongest case dozens of times online and none of you have even come close to addressing it. Hauglid didn't address it in his 2006 conference talk, and William refuses to address it online. You guys revert to the straw man for your publications because it is important that you appear victorious in your argument, and this is the only way you can.

As for the rest of your post, it simply is not worth trying to discuss these things with you.

When the hell have you ever "discussed" anything with anybody?

I thought Christopher Smith might actually attempt to address my questions, but he is obviously not interested in having the underlying thesis of his JWHA paper dismantled on a public message board. Hard to blame him for that.

I already responded the the list of stupid questions, I advised CHris months ago not to suffer fools anymore. He has a reputation, and should leave the asshole duty to people like me. I'm not trying to make a career in Mormon studies, so I have nothing to lose by telling people their idiot arguments are idiotic.

I've got to say that my favorite part of this entire thread is Graham’s latest reference to his promised “expose” of William Schryver.

Which is why he squirmed out of sight suddenly when he realized I have ain informant who knows his personal life well.

LOL! Hey, when all else fails, play the ultimate ad hominem card: the “expose”. I look forward to Graham’s dirt dishing.

I can assure you I will only let Will's own words speak for themselves.

I just hope Graham doesn’t chicken out in the end and decide to not put out his expose.

Like he chickened out to debate me on at least six different occasions?

I know a lot of people who are really looking forward to it.

The only people who have any idea who WIll Schryver is, or care, are the tiny lot of apologetic misfits running the asylum at MAD/FARMS. I can tell Brian Hauglid is already distancing himself from him, as is Don Bradley and others. Will is a 21st century Well Jakeman who will get kudos for his bullet proof testimony, but little else.

Nomad wrote:It is only since Schryver’s FAIR presentation that the critics have suddenly begun to deny ever having made such claims! Ironically enough, this is exactly what Greg Smith predicted would happen!

During his last session logged on to this message board, Nomad was having sex with a goat.

I predict that he will either not respond, deny it, or give a sarcastic "yeah, I did" type answer that is really a denial.

If my prediction comes true, it means that Nomad really was having sex with a goat.

And if Nomad demands proof of my claim, I can just refer back to my prediction coming true.

A chronology of "pure Language" rhetoric as originated and consistently promulgated by Joseph Smith. This was consistent for five years prior to Phelps' letter to his wife.

November, 1830. Revelation to Joseph Smith
Moses 6:5-6 "And a book of remembrance was kept, in the which was recorded, in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration; And by them their achildren were taught to read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled."

February, 1831 - Elizabeth Ann Whitney relays a story about her tongue speaking incident:
"The first patriarchal blessing meeting over which Joseph Smith, Sen., presided was one of the most striking and noticeable features of that particular period of time. In this meeting I received the gift of singing inspirationally, and the first Song of Zion ever given in the pure language was sung by me then, and interpreted by Parley P. Pratt, and written down; of which I have preserved the original copy. It describes the manner in which the ancient patriarchs blessed their families, and gives some account of 'Adam-ondi-Ahman.'"

March, 1832. Revelation to Joseph Smith
D&C 78:15;20 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman...Wherefore, do the things which I have commanded you, saith your Redeemer, even the Son Ahman, who prepareth all things before he btaketh you."

March, 1832 - Joseph Smith provided a Q&A session regarding the Pure Language project he's been working on. Here is the document, with transcription below:

A Sample of pure Language given by Joseph the Seer as copied by Br Johnson
Question What is the name of God in pure Language
Answer Awmen.
Q - The meaning of the pure word A[w]men
A - It is the being which made all things in all its parts.
Q - What is the name of the Son of God.
A - The Son Awmen.
Q - What is the Son Awmen.
A - It is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born.
Q - What is is man.
A - This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen
Q - What are Angels called in pure language.
A - Awmen Angls-men
Q - What are the meaning of these words.
A - Awmen’s Ministerring servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen the greatest part of Awmen Son. Sons Awmen Son Awmen Awmen

April, 1832 - Brigham Young tells a story about an incident in Kirtland:
"In the evening a few of the brethren came in, and we conversed together upon the things of the kingdom. He called upon me to pray; in my prayer I spoke in tongues. As soon as we arose from our knees the brethren flocked around [Joseph Smith], and asked his opinion concerning the gift of tongues that was upon me. He told them it was the pure Adamic language."

May 26, 1835
William Phelps wrote his wife a letter and appended "a specimen of some of the 'pure language."



This is almost an exact copy of a segment that appears in the GAEL several months later.

According to a few apologists there is no reason to believe Joseph Smith was behind the GAEL of 1835, since it was William Phelps who was receiving revelation on the "pure language." Is that reasonable? You decide.

Incidentally, the first image above further proves Joseph Smith was a false prophet because it shows he believed the original language is in some ways similar to modern English. For example, according to Joseph Smith, the word for son in the Adamic language, is actually "son." The word for men is actually "men"and the word for angels is "angls."

Kevin Graham wrote:Which is why he squirmed out of sight suddenly when he realized I have ain informant who knows his personal life well.

Yes, I heard that Will had a "Fanny Alger" incident.

Hi Darth and Kevin,

It was fun seeing the two of you suddenly spring together into action after days of silence and once the thread had been pronounced dead and moved to the terrestrial forum.

However, perhaps I can save the two of you from wasting any more of your valued breath by asking a few introspective questions:

1. What will it take for you to finally figure out that I haven't denied that Joseph Smith might have been involved in the EC? Were any evidence with substance to be discovered linking Joseph to that document, I would have no hesitence granting it.

2. What will it take for you to finally figure out that Joseph might not have been involved in the EC? It is not beyond the realm of possibilities for Phelps to have created the document all by his lonesome, and there is nothing of substance negating that as a valid option for reasoned consideration.

3. What will it take for you to finally figure out that there is just too little and too insubstantial of evidence to confidently say one way or the other about whether Joseph was involved in the EC or not? All one can rightly say with any confidence is that Phelps was involved--which is essentially what I have been suggesting all along.

4. What will it take for you to finally figure out that the question of Joseph's involvement in the EC isn't a battle worth quibbling incessantly over for either side--at least it is quite inconsequential to my side. I have indulged in the back and forth on this specific question, not because it matters to me one way or the other how it is answered, but rather because I saw it as a teaching opportunity to instruct on the finer art of critical thinking and quasi-forensic analysis. But, I fear I have failed as an instructor, and I am puzzled as to why the two of you seem to be fighting desparately, tooth and nail, to tie Joseph to the EC document. What is up with that?

Finally, I would really appreciate an answer to my previous question. Here it is again: Given that you are open to a pre-existing text for the EC, are you also open to the same for the EA's--particularly in terms of the relatively complex English explanations?

This is my round-about way of asking what you thought about my earlier arguments using the puzzle metaphor. So far, no one besides Nomad has responded to what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Conveniently missing from Kevin's list of references to Pure Language are these comments by Phelps:

It is pleasing to God to see men use the blessings which he gave them, and not abuse them. For this reason, if the saints abide in the faith wherewith they have been called, the land shall yield her increase, and the blessings of heaven shall attend them, and the Lord will turn to them a pure language, and the glory of God will again be among the righteous on earth.. (Evening and Morning Star (Sept. 1832) William Phelps "Writing Letters," p.25)

One reason, perhaps, that the sacred poets came nearer the standard of truth, or, in fact, came up to it, with less fancy, and more beauty, than common poets, is because the Hebrew, in which they wrote, was nearer the pure language, with which Adam gave names, than any other since used by man. (Evening and Morning Star (Nov 1832) William Phelps "Sacred Poetry," p.45)

What a prophecy is contained in the last verse! He will be merciful unto his land, and to his people: so he will; and we can exclaim: O that the Lord were come to Zion, that his saints might see eye to eye, and might speak a pure language! But the time is short, for Zephaniah says, the determination of the Lord is, to gather the nations, that he way assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them his indignation, even all his fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of his jealousy. For then will he turn unto the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent." (Evening and Morning Star (Nov 1832) William Phelps "Sacred Poetry," p.45)

We can lift up our hearts and be glad, for the day is nigh, & the hour at hand, when we, if faithful, shall be of one heart and one mind; yea, and shall speak a pure language, and shall see our Lord face to face. (Evening and Morning Star (Feb 1833) William Phelps "Commandments," p.69)

THERE are many true words spoken, but few heeded. As to the meaning of words, we are sensible, that many contradictions in terms exist, and will till wickedness is destroyed, and the Pure Language returned. (Evening and Morning Star (Apr 1833) William Phelps ed p.88)

I greatly rejoice at the light of the last days, and sincerely wish all men were fit and willing to receive it, that the glorious day might roll on when we might not only find sacred records by the ministering of angels, but might have the presence of Jesus again on earth; & be living witnesses of that day, when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the water covers the sea; when all shall know him, from the least even to the greatest; and all the redeemed multitude speak a pure language, according to the promise.( Messenger and Advocate (Jun 1835) William Phelps "Letter No. 8," p.131)

the happy time when Jacob shall go up to the house of the Lord, to worship him in spirit and in truth; to live in holiness, when the Lord will restore his judges as at the first, and his councelors as at the beginning; when every man may sit under his own vine and fig-tree, and there will be none to molest or make afraid; when he will turn to them a pure language, he will turn to them a pure language, and the earth will be filled with sacred knowledge as the waters cover the great deep. (Messenger and Advocate (Jan 1836) William Phelps "The Indians," p.245)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was fun seeing the two of you suddenly spring together into action after days of silence and once the thread had been pronounced dead and moved to the terrestrial forum.

I saw it again because I don't frequent celestial much. And in the immortal words of Doc Holliday, "I'm sorry wade, I forgot you were there." And why are you talking about Darth's response as if he and I are the same? If there was ever a tag-team effort, it is between you and Nomind.

However, perhaps I can save the two of you from wasting any more of your valued breath by asking a few introspective questions:

ROFL! And yet more questions!! How did I know this was coming? Because you're just that predictable wade. This is what you always do in the face of refuting arguments. After the answers to the first dozen questions have revealed your lack of familiarity with the subject, you just throw out another dozen, pretending you're some kind of worthy opponent who is actually presenting something new. You've done nothing wade, except to do Will Schryver's bidding in his cowardly absence, by reiterating his same stupid points that were addressed months ago.

1. What will it take for you to finally figure out that I haven't denied that Joseph Smith might have been involved in the EC?

You might start by ceasing with the stupid questions that are clearly designed to imply precisely that. You have denied that there is ANY evidence for it, and now you think you can weasle your way out by saying you never denied the "possibility"? So what? I never denied the "possibility" that Joseph Smith saw God, but I doubt this would do much to convince people I'm not anti-Mormon.

Were any evidence with substance to be discovered linking Joseph to that document, I would have no hesitence granting it.

Your boneheaded denial of clear evidence linking him to this is astonishing on the surface, but then I realize you have cognitive issues so it isn't much of a surprise. For you, that he came up with the concept isn't evidence that he was involved with it, but the fact that Phelps studied languages in school is, to your mind, strong evidence that he was behind the whole thing! And you completely ignored choronolgy, or you're just unaware of the evidence predating the 1835 letter to Sally Phelps. Probably the latter since you seem to mimick Will ignorance step by step.

2. What will it take for you to finally figure out that Joseph might not have been involved in the EC?

Because it is too improbable that he wouldn't have been involved. The whole pure language nonsense began and ended with Joseph Smith. He was its master for years before Phelps started showing "interest." He was the only person who identified and restored the Pure language. Phelps himself admitted he could not translate the Egyptian documents, which he said only Joseph Smith could. So why the hell should we believe he thought himself capable of translating the original language with no corresponding text? Since you're so interested in his letters to his wife, why not take all of them in context?

Letter to Sally, July 19 and 20, 1835

The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.

Case closed. Phelps never pretended to have this ability, and this letter was written months after the letter you want to use to suggest he was working on a pure language project on his own. That letter merely mimicks what Joseph Smith had revealed three years earlier, but you weren't aware of that, so now you're in backtracking mode.

It is not beyond the realm of possibilities for Phelps to have created the document all by his lonesome, and there is nothing of substance negating that as a valid option for reasoned consideration.

You're proving my point again by focusing on possibility because probability doesn't help you. It is beyond the realm of probability, as I have already demonstrated. Funny how you don't care much about what's technically possible when talking about the possibility that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

3. What will it take for you to finally figure out that there is just too little and too insubstantial of evidence to confidently say one way or the other about whether Joseph was involved in the EC or not?

Something called reasonable doubt. So far all you have done is point to irrelevant anecdotes about how Phelps was interested in languages, how he studied in school, bla bla bla... None of this outweighs the fact that "pure language" was Joseph Smith's baby. Only he had the ability to translate ancient languages in print. There is no evidence that Phelps believed he could do this. None. I know it and you know it.

All one can rightly say with any confidence is that Phelps was involved--which is essentially what I have been suggesting all along.

No, you have been suggesting Phelps was the mastermind behind the project, which is just your loyalty to Schryver showing. Only he has gone on record to argue such stupidity. No other LDS historian supports him; or at least, will go on record to do so. It is the brainchild of a ticked off apologist who is trying to score points against his arch nemesis, Brent Metcalfe. Nothing more. Virtually every LDS publication in two centuries attributes the pure language translations to Joseph Smith. In short, they maintain what the "critics" say now. None even hint that Phelps was anything more than a curious side-kick student and scribe.

4. What will it take for you to finally figure out that the question of Joseph's involvement in the EC isn't a battle worth quibbling incessantly over for either side--at least it is quite inconsequential to my side. I have indulged in the back and forth on this specific question, not because it matters to me one way or the other how it is answered, but rather because I saw it as a teaching opportunity to instruct on the finer art of critical thinking and quasi-forensic analysis.

ROFL!

You know how to take a beating and walk away convinced that you're somehow "instructing" your opponents, better than anyone I know wade. I give you that.

But, I fear I have failed as an instructor, and I am puzzled as to why the two of you seem to be fighting desparately, tooth and nail, to tie Joseph to the EC document. What is up with that?

Uh, no. You're the one fighting tooth and nail trying to divorce him from it by insisting there is NO EVIDENCE, and now that your theory via Will Schryver has been decimated to ruins, you now want to pretend it was never an important point to begin with. Well, it has consumed virtually all of your apologetic effort over the last three threads. You egged people on to answer your questions pertaining to this, precisely because you thought you were "making progress" in proving this. And so now you want to pretend it never really mattered in the first place? But if that is true then why is it you cannot concede the pont just for the sake of moving on to whatever "real point" you pretend to have? Because you know as well as I do that it DOES matter to you. You won't concede the point because you know it is an important point that your source, Will Schryver, aims to use.

But it is pointless trying to discuss anything with you because you never answer questions and - as hilarious as it may be - fancy yourself an "instructor" among student; students who clearly have a more advanced understanding of the subject you or your mentor. You always bombard people with a laundry list of compound questions which usually require twenty minutes just to read through them to fully understand what you're asking and why. Then you start taunting them if they go a couple of days without posting on the forum, as if we're all just a bunch of single, old fart with nothing better to do with our lives. And then when we finally take time out of our lives to address your dumbass questions, you never address the answers we provide. Ever. You simply move on to newer questions while pretending no one has really answered you to begin with. It is a never ending circle and routine that has consumed you for more than a decade now.