.

[Ed1]

.

[Shulem]

I wonder how long it will take before you DELETE this thread, Ed.

??

[Shulem]

As Practiced by the Ancients: The Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language as 19th
Century Metadata

Or, a Pictographic Book of Abraham for Grammatomancy
Abstract:

Or, in other words, a trip into Neverland and dreaming what one wants to believe is true because one refuses to grow up.

Okay....

Abstract:

Or, in other words, anything goes. Hold on to your seats everyone. It's time to take a ride into Neverland! But will this "abstract" properly represent WHAT Joseph Smith actually said and implied? Or is it just a trip into anything goes in a vain effort to find another way to describe something because the original assertion was wrong?

Hmmm.

[Ed1]

.

[Ed1]

.

[Shulem]

I wonder how long it will take before you DELETE this thread, Ed.

??

I've decided not to this time Paul. This one is for preservation and posterity, for a record of my final contribution to the field. Ignored or not. Made fun of or not.

I've decided to take Philo's and Kish's advice and psychological counsel, and try like heck not to care about what you or anyone else has to say, only if you point out grossly botched mistakes will I care.

One last final gasp. Okay. I get it.

I'll take a look, again, but I can't say how fast I'll want to do this. I'm multitasking. But the thread is here and it's not going away.

So....

[Shulem]

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers are a very controversial area of study, with many different
opinions among credentialed scholars on many sides of the debate, some of these scholars being
believers in the restored gospel, and others not.

Too many "many" -- two in a single sentence!! Everyone will agree that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is a controversial study of the Egyptian language. But really, how many sides of the debate are there on the many sides? There are believers and nonbelievers. I think TWO pretty much sums it up. So, let's get rid of the "many" and leave it to those who believe and those who do not.

Two, will do.

[Shulem]

This paper will deal mostly with the issues in
the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as its own production, mostly distinct from the Book of Abraham,
and will not focus so much on the Book of Abraham text itself.

Let's hear what you have to say about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. But separating it from the "TEXT" of the Book of Abraham, per se, will be quite a trick. How you manage to do that when Joseph Smith didn't, will be interesting to see. Bear in mind, the Book of Abraham text includes a single chapter consisting of 32 verses AND the Explanations of 3 Facsimiles as published in the Times and Seasons. That *IS* the Book of Abraham!

Right?

Right.

[Shulem]

Also, this paper will try to
determine what the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language in the Kirtland Egyptian
Papers purport to be in terms of what the early saints working on it thought of it, trying to use
mostly internal evidences from it, rather than trying to define what modern scholars have
decided or hypothesized for it.

You don't have to try. Just do it! Quote what was said by those who were involved with the work and what they had to say about the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. I will agree that what matters is what Joseph Smith and his assistants said about the work. No need to bring up what modern scholars have to say because they aren't relevant to the discussion and don't accept what Joseph Smith said and don't believe that he said what he meant and meant what he said.

Modern Mormons reject Smith's original claims.

[Shulem]

A short statement apparently written by Willard Richards may shed some light on the purpose of certain parts of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers in the minds of the early saints.

Richards was an eyewitness. What he had to say is highly relevant. He *was* one of the minds of the early saints.

We ought to understand the claims of the author of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers on its own terms, rather than what has been historically imposed upon it, just to get to the bottom of the mystery of what may have been in the head of that author.

The terms and claims of the GAEL is what was imposed upon it by its author, Joseph Smith and his scribes. What was in the head of the author is not entirely known but what he wrote, said, and claimed, is a manifestation of what was in his head. The mystery was what was written on the papyrus and Smith claimed revelation to reveal the mystery exactly as it reads in the GAEL

Perhaps then, some ammunition can emerge that can defend the GAEL author against the charges the critics have leveled, that the GAEL author was attempting to mechanically extract large amounts of information out of single isolated characters. Perhaps the GAEL is the key to solve this problem.

Perhaps we can simply take Smith at his word and accept the fact that he was claiming to translate Egyptian characters and from them came large amounts of information in English simply because that is exactly how it reads in the GAEL. Again, he said what he meant and meant what he said. Smith and his scribes never at anytime had a problem accepting the concept that a single character could represent large amounts of information in English. That was established by Smith and recorded exactly as it reads in the Grammar. We have no choice but to take Smith at his word as it reads in his work.