Adamic/KEP logical connection

[_Sethbag]

I couldn't fit the title I originally had in mind into the title bar, so that's what we get.

Here's what I was thinking about the other day. Various apologists have suggested that it's absurd that Joseph Smith would have suggested, as in the KEP, that one symbol in Egyptian could expand out into whole complex concepts, sentences, etc.

We have a counter-example, actually, and I thought I'd discuss it.

Probably every one of us, including the nevermos, are familiar with the three-syllable invocation to God that was practiced in the LDS temple endowment, during the prayer circle, until 1990, when the "translated" version, in English, was substituted in.

Please, people, I would ask that nobody actually type out the three syllables in this thread, which I would like to have stay in the Terrestrial Kingdom. I hereby express to the mods my permission for them to break out any post by anyone in this thread that includes the three words, into a separate thread in the Telestial Kingdom. I don't want this thread being moved over there, if at all possible.

Back to the subject at hand. In the pre-1990 endowment, which I and many others here experienced firsthand, we would raise our arms and utter three syllables, as if they were three separate one-syllable words (since we didn't see it written down, I suppose there's no way we could be certain they were intended to be three words, rather than some other combination of three syllables). We were instructed that these three syllables translated into English expanded out into 8 words, which I would likewise ask people not to type out.

I trust we all know what I'm talking about. My point is that in the temple endowment itself we see a good example of a very simple and short utterance being taken to mean a significantly more complex expression in English.

Detractors may well respond that an expansion from 3 syllables to 8 words (actually, 8 syllables too) is much smaller-scale than the expansion in the KEP. I would reply that yes, this is true, but that the KEP describes various degrees, of various lengths. An expansion of the 1st degree would be fairly short, while the 2nd degree would be longer, and so forth, up till we had the 5th degree coming in at a freaking paragraph.

How do we know Joseph Smith didn't envision something similar between Adamic and English that the KEP proposes for Egyptian to English? The concept is similar, although perhaps this temple utterance might only count as 2nd degree, or something like that.

What do you guys think?

[_charity]

I have read your post over several times and can't find the slam in it. Is it written between the lines or something?

[_cksalmon]

I couldn't fit the title I originally had in mind into the title bar, so that's what we get.

Here's what I was thinking about the other day. Various apologists have suggested that it's absurd that Joseph Smith would have suggested, as in the KEP, that one symbol in Egyptian could expand out into whole complex concepts, sentences, etc.

We have a counter-example, actually, and I thought I'd discuss it.

Probably every one of us, including the nevermos, are familiar with the three-syllable invocation to God that was practiced in the LDS temple endowment, during the prayer circle, until 1990, when the "translated" version, in English, was substituted in.

Please, people, I would ask that nobody actually type out the three syllables in this thread, which I would like to have stay in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Serious question, Seth.

Is there a terrestrial ban on temple content? I didn't know that. I'm cool with not typing the syllables.

Umm.........................

ID-A-HO!

AAHH!!!

I couldn't stop myself!

But, seriously...

CKS

[Guest]

I have read your post over several times and can't find the slam in it. Is it written between the lines or something?

The possibility that Sethbag might post something non-slamming is out of the question. Must... find... slam!

Edited: oh look, I accidentally typed up a three-syllable combination. I think reciting it during FAIR conferences would be a great idea.

[_asbestosman]

Speaking of temples, words, and expansions, I have one for you. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin being translated into--well, let's see what Daniel 5 says:

25 ¶ And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

[_beastie]

I have read your post over several times and can't find the slam in it. Is it written between the lines or something?

I guess the "slam" is that the apologetic response that Joseph Smith would never have thought that one symbol could expand into lengthy phrases is bologna.

Good work, seth!

[_Runtu]

Once I went to a session for the deaf in Provo years ago, and they had the "three syllables" typed out on the subtitled screen. It was three words.

[_charity]

Speaking of temples, words, and expansions, I have one for you. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin being translated into--well, let's see what Daniel 5 says:

25 ¶ And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Perfect!

[_Sethbag]

Thanks for that comment, Runtu. Interesting, but how do we know that it was really three words? What if the person who typed it out was just exercising his own fallible human opinion, and God didn't see fit to correct him? It's always possible.

Beastie: yes, thanks, that was the "slam", if you will. I've read criticism of the critic approach to the KEP, where an apologist will argue that the KEP cannot possibly represent a "translation working paper" because it's absurd to imagine that Joseph Smith would have thought that a single character of Egyptian could mean a whole complex thought, even a few sentences worth.

I think that three three-syllable "Adamic" invocation in the temple was a counter-example, demonstrating that in fact (assuming that this part of the endowment came from Joseph Smith) Joseph had in other places already asserted that such a short utterance could carry a significantly longer and more complex meaning in English.

But Abman comes through for the critic team BIG TIME! Thanks Abman! That example of the writing on the wall from Daniel is an even better example. It demonstrates a Biblical source for the idea, which Joseph could have expressed in the KEP, that single words in some "purer" language could carry enough meaning to require whole sentences or even paragraphs to express in English. The Daniel example clearly beats out the three-syllable "Adamic" invocation in this regard.

[_dartagnan]

We already know from the KEP that this is precisely how Joseph Smith thought. Also, that was the generaal belief about Egyptian in th day; that each character represeted concépts.

When apologists use this argument (i.e. there is no way Smith could have thought that) they only reveal their own ignorance on the topic.

I'm typing from the airport but will be able to provide more information later, if anyone is still interested.