DiscussMormonism.com

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

All of which post-date Joseph Smith's conception and teachings of pure language by more than two years, which go to prove my point even further. None of these excerpts say anything you probably want them to say. None of them commission Phelps to be a "pure language" translator. All he did was incorporate Joseph Smith's previous teachings with his various contributions to the LDS magazine. So what?

In the examples you listed, they either talk about how the ancients spoke in the pure language or about how the pure language is to be restored at some future time. This is supposed to be news? These are essentially variant forms of Joseph Smith's previous teachings on the subject. Where's the beef wade? Surely you've got something better than this!?!?!

Again, in July 1835 we know for a fact that Phelps, despite his previous boast of knowing "14 languages" admitted he didn't have the ability to translate the Egyptian papyri. In that same breath, he said for this reason they were given to Joseph Smith who immediately translated them. Case closed.

Hi Kevin,

I am not sure where you got your digital copy of “The Sample”, but I appreciate you posting it so I can download it to my computer.

What I find interesting are the notable differences between the “Sample” and the “Specimen”. Aside from the spelling differences, the characters are different, and the formatting is different (the “Sample” is broken out into two columns, and takes the form of Q&A; whereas the “Specimen” has four columns, and reads more like a grammar, and includes the addition of sounds along with the names/words and explanations.)

Is there any substantial evidence to suggest that Phelps couldn’t be responsible for the change in characters, columns, the addition of sounds associated with the names/words, and formatting as a grammar rather than Q&A?

Kevin Graham wrote: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.

Please look a little closer, Kevin. While the same symbols from the specimen appeared in the EA's and GAEL, the sounds/names and English explanations were in many respects markedly different--not to mention that there are two columns in the specimen containing what appear to be sounds and names/words, whereas with the EA’s and the GAEL, there is only one column.

Note also that in the EA's those same characters, and associated sounds and explanations, are listed in Part 2 (there is no "Part 2" in the specimen), the First Degree (there are no "Degrees" mentioned in the specimen), whereas in the GAEL, they are separated into different degrees.

Again, is there any substantial evidence to suggest that Phelps couldn’t be responsible for these differences between the specimen and the EA’s as well as between the EA’s and the GAEL?

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."

I don’t know who those apologist supposedly are, but I have not suggested that Joseph Smith couldn’t have been behind the GAEL. Rather, I believe the evidence is more compelling that Phelps was the driving force behind the GAEL, though it would matter little to me were evidence to be discovered more strongly suggesting that Joseph was behind it.

Certainly, I have not suggested that the GAEL was a product of Phelps receiving revelation. In fact, I have questioned whether it was directly a product of divine revelation, regardless of who may be attributed as behind it.

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."

And all this time I thought English was a romance language!

I am not a linguist, nor do I teach language for a living, but even I know that the English language is derived from a number of other languages, including ancient languages. You can read about it HERE.

Besides, even were the English language not derived from the most ancient known languages, this does not mean that it can’t share, coincidentally, certain words and meanings with those ancient languages.

As such, the only way that Joseph may be deemed a false prophet in this insignificant regard, is for us to know the Adamic language. Since we don’t, Kevin’s argument and conclusion are just more of his well-meaning nonsense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:/ snip

What will it take for you to finally figure out that I don't really care about any particular theory of the KEP, and that regardless of whether the EAG was used as a purported translation tool, or an attempt to reverse-engineer Egyptian, or an attempt to create a secret code (the latter having a grand total of zero evidence in its support), the net effect is that it makes Joseph Smith look like a crackpot?

What will it take for you to finally figure out that I am still waiting for an answer on, "even if, for the sake of argument, Schryver was right: so what?"

P.S. It took me a few days, because who ever looks at the Celestial Forum?

Kevin Graham wrote:
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."

And all this time I thought English was a romance language!

Yes, it's a rather amateurish attempt to invent a new language (and claim that it's ancient). Again, compared to Tolkein, the Lord's Prophet comes up short. Tolkein's elvish makes Smith's Adamic look like the scribblings of a child with ADD.

English isn't strictly a romance language, but your point is taken.

Buffalo wrote:Tolkein's elvish makes Smith's Adamic look like the scribblings of a child with ADD.

But at least the compelling narrative and literary strength of the Book of Mormon compares favorably with Tolkien, right?

Kevin,

I am sorry that my investigative questions are beyond your reach. It is just that I have tried a more direct approach with you in the past, and failed to help you reach cognition.

So, I thought to use the Socratic approach to see if it migth bust through the bunker that is your intractible mind.

Evidently, even that didn't suffice, and so it is highly doubtful that anything will work, and so why keep trying?

The sheer hopelessness of your mentality is brought no more clear into focus than your most recent nonsense in asserting that a single quote specifically in reference to characters on the papyri, somehow magically closes the case on the EC document whose characters are decidedly not on the papyri. Utterly amazing.

Sally forth, Don Quixote!

But, perhaps I have crossed the line into unniceness with these playful jabs, and so it may be best to accept your perception that it is pointless for you to try and talk with me, and thus discontinue my part in our back-and-forth interaction, and leave you once again to brag about destroying the apologetic dragons.

This does not mean that I won't necessarily post future thoughts on this thread. It is just that if I do so, I won't do so by way of attempted discussion with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Darth J wrote:What will it take for you to finally figure out that I don't really care about any particular theory of the KEP, and that regardless of whether the EAG was used as a purported translation tool, or an attempt to reverse-engineer Egyptian, or an attempt to create a secret code (the latter having a grand total of zero evidence in its support), the net effect is that it makes Joseph Smith look like a crackpot?

I can very easily figure out all of what you said except for what you percieve as the net effect. As for that alleged net effect, it will take me no more than for you to finally figure out your "crackpot" assertion is nothing but a mis-directed projection.

What will it take for you to finally figure out that I am still waiting for an answer on, "even if, for the sake of argument, Schryver was right: so what?"

It will take, in time, as long as it takes you to figure out that you already know the answer, having been given it by me and others multiple times in the past.

It will also take as long as it takes you to figure out the irrelevance of your question to this thread, particularly in light of the OP calling for abandoning any and all pre-existing theories.

I could go on, but we are already most likely looking at an eternity before you figure these two things out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

Darth J wrote:What will it take for you to finally figure out that I don't really care about any particular theory of the KEP, and that regardless of whether the EAG was used as a purported translation tool, or an attempt to reverse-engineer Egyptian, or an attempt to create a secret code (the latter having a grand total of zero evidence in its support), the net effect is that it makes Joseph Smith look like a crackpot?

I can very easily figure out all of what you said except for what you percieve as the net effect. As for that alleged net effect, it will take me no more than for you to finally figure out your "crackpot" assertion is nothing but a mis-directed projection.

Considering that you think that handshakes and secret passwords plagiarized from Freemasons are the way to get past the angels who stand as sentinels on the way to the Celestial Kingdom, no, I am not surprised that you don't see Joseph Smith looking like a crackpot here.

What will it take for you to finally figure out that I am still waiting for an answer on, "even if, for the sake of argument, Schryver was right: so what?"

It will take, in time, as long as it takes you to figure out that you already know the answer, having been given it by me and others multiple times in the past.

It will also take as long as it takes you to figure out the irrelevance of your question to this thread, particularly in light of the OP calling for abandoning any and all pre-existing theories.

I could go on, but we are already most likely looking at an eternity before you figure these two things out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I do already know the answer: the Book of Abraham is a hoax, and that would be the case whether or not the Kirtland Egyptian Papers had ever been discovered. I was just wondering if apologists intend to address this at some point vis-a-vis this nail in the coffin that was buried under Mt. Doom, etc. So far, neither William Schryver nor his disciples appear willing---or more importantly, capable---of doing so.

And yes, Wade, I am very well aware that "what's the point of all this?" is irrelevant to your thread.

Buffalo wrote:Yes, it's a rather amateurish attempt to invent a new language (and claim that it's ancient). Again, compared to Tolkein, the Lord's Prophet comes up short. Tolkein's elvish makes Smith's Adamic look like the scribblings of a child with ADD.

English isn't strictly a romance language, but your point is taken.

When it comes to secular enterprises like constructing new languages, one would expect there to be a huge disparity in quality between the scholastic-related work of an Oxford linguistics proffesor in the early 1900's, and the brief hobby of either an uneducated farm boy and/or a prairi-educated newspaper editor in the early 1800's.

In fact, it ought Old Testament go without say. But, evidently in some quarters, it bears stating the obvious--and even then it may not compute.

Thank's -Wade Englund-

Darth J wrote:Considering that you think that handshakes and secret passwords plagiarized from Freemasons are the way to get past the angels who stand as sentinels on the way to the Celestial Kingdom, no, I am not surprised that you don't see Joseph Smith looking like a crackpot here.

Yes, I do already know the answer: the Book of Abraham is a hoax, and that would be the case whether or not the Kirtland Egyptian Papers had ever been discovered. I was just wondering if apologists intend to address this at some point vis-à-vis this nail in the coffin that was buried under Mt. Doom, etc. So far, neither William Schryver nor his disciples appear willing---or more importantly, capable---of doing so.

And yes, Wade, I am very well aware that "what's the point of all this?" is irrelevant to your thread.

Oh, good. I was hoping that you would, in your uniquely lame way, perform your Pee Wee Herman immitation before I left this thread. I wasn't disappointed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-