KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Markk]

Having extricated myself from the conversational blackhole that is Darth J, I will be pleased to now move on to address Markk's question:

Wade why was the code produced, to keep Anthon from reading the words of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses? Let me know why you believe it was produced?

I have no idea why you brought Anthon up in relation to the KEP, but as I understand things thus far, the KEP were produced with the intent of serving two purposes: 1) to keep sensative religious information hidden (so as to preserve faith, protect the sacred from the profane, and prevent over-burdening and misuse of sacred knowledge), and 2) for exegetical or hermeneutical purposes (a means for initiates to gain a more in-depth understanding of God and his kingdom). In short, the purpose of the KEP was to function as a "pure language", not unlike what may be found with Kabbalah and Hebrew.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The reason I brought up Anthon, is that he was the only person around that could read, or at least make progress with Egyptian. So...if no one could understand it in the first place, why put a code on it.

As for the rest of your reasons, exegesis and hermeneutics is basically the science of letting a text interpret it's self, how on earth does changing an original text in the pen of the author lend to that?

As far as pure language goes that is a straw man to support this argument, if what is written in the KEP a pure language and does what you claim why don't the current prophets dictate sacred doc's to the saints in code. The "Gospel" means good news and if Mormonism is the restored "gospel" why hide the good news of God? If it wasn't meant, the Book of Abraham, for others to read why did the print it?

This is one you might want to think about Wade.

Mark

[Tator]

I’m going to try, once again, to help Wade see the weakness of his theory.

Let’s pretend I’m going to make a secret code. I want to pick out neat looking figures for my secret code, and pick out such figures from different sources. One such source is a genuine Egyptian papyri, so I use some of those figures, along with others I pick up elsewhere. I use them in a grid for my secret code.

Now, according to Wade, no one could feasibly believe that my secret code contained some genuine Egyptian figures because I had mixed them with other elements and was using them in a grid-like code. In fact, if such a person were collecting genuine Egyptian figures for some purpose, there is no way that they would select those genuine Egyptian figures from my secret code to be used in such a collection – all because I used the figures mixed in with others in a grid-like code.

Get it now, Wade?

It's pretty obvious that you are the one that doesn't "get it."

lol!

I’ve been away from this madhouse for the past several days, and I haven’t even missed it. Imagine that!

But I’ve now scanned (very unattentively, I might add) through a number of the posts over the past few days, and I must confess that I’m confused as to why beastie and others think it matters at all if these guys in Kirtland believed that the Masonic cipher characters were Egyptian?

In other words, why do you think this has any bearing at all on the Schryver thesis of the KEP? As I understand it, his point is simply that EAG stuff wasn’t an attempt to translate the papyri. The characters given explanations, with some exceptions, don’t even come from the papyri. Those that do come from the papyri are selected arbitrarily. Some of the characters are from the Masonic cipher. Some bear a resemblance to characters from the Anthon manuscript.

So what?

The point is that they aren’t from the papyri!

These guys weren’t making the EAG in order to translate papyri.

The characters they used were selected arbitrarily.

Who cares whether or not they believed they were Egyptian? It doesn’t matter to either the dependency thesis, or the cipher thesis.

I have seen very little evidence that anyone on this message board (except people like wenglund and maklelan) even understands Schryver’s arguments well enough to speak intelligently about them. And that includes California Kid, who has been one of the main people behind this red herring line of argumentation. I think it’s funny as can be that the exmos have anointed him and Kevin Graham as their “experts” on the KEP when it’s so obvious that neither one of them knows what they’re talking about. I read through Smith’s Abr. 1:1-3 paper again over the weekend. What a specimen of so-called “scholarship”!!!! Really? The EAG was created to translate a single paragraph, and then they decided to do something different? I started making a list of bald assertions from the paper, but I finally gave up after about a dozen or so. It is comforting to know that Smith represents the future of Book of Abraham criticism. The only thing that could be better is if Graham and Osborn can get themselves published, too.

You know, I didn’t think it was possible for my estimation of your grasp of topics to be lowered after the “an ancient Mesoamerican polity of a million would be minor” debacle, but you have just proven me wrong. It’s now lower.

Um, you did listen to Schryver’s presentation, right? He used the fact that not all the figures in the KEP were Egyptian as primary evidence that the KEP had nothing to do with translating Egyptian. Once you concede that Joseph Smith et all may have believed that the figures obtained elsewhere were, in fact, Egyptian, you are back at square one, with a document that probably was intended to translate Egyptian. After all, Joseph Smith et al thought the figures therein were all Egyptian. Why do you think Wade has argued against my point so vigorously? At least he recognizes what the issue is, while you don’t seem to at all.


Now there are two possible explanations for the presence of figures in the KEP that were not obtained by the papyri. One is that the KEP were intended to help translate the Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith filled in the missing gaps – exactly as he did with the facsimile. The other possibility is that it was not used to translate the Book of Abraham, but was manufactured after said translation, in which case it could be intended as a sort of Rosetta stone for future Egyptian translation. The problem for defenders of the faith is just as severe in either scenario.

So if you, or Will, want to argue that the KEP were not intended to be a translation tool, then you’d better offer some evidence other than the fact that not all the figures were Egyptian. I predict that you will stomp and bluster and behave as if my point were ridiculous and irrelevant, or already addressed, without, of course, going into details of any of those blusters. But the fact that you don’t recognize why it is significant that Joseph Smith et al may have believed the figures borrowed from a Masonic cipher were, indeed, Egyptian, tells me all I need to know about your participation on this topic.

[Guest]

Kind of like the "cipher," you mean? Kind of like how you can make up any number of guesses about what people's motives were, but you still come back to that nagging elephant in the room?

???

Do you mean to imply that there is no easily demonstrable contemporary precedent (among the Mormons in Kirtland in 1835) for enciphering Joseph Smith’s revelations? Is that what you’re trying to suggest?

Really?

No, not really. I'm looking for that evidence that the EAG or any of that was ever used, unsuccessfully or otherwise, as a cipher, or that Joseph Smith or anyone around him claimed to be doing anything other than translating Egyptian characters. Found it yet?

And yet this affidavit is in the History of the Church, as is this:

“I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham. . . . Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” ( History of the Church, 2:236).

What we are in a position to know is that Joseph Smith went along with Chandler's claim.

Pardon me if I continue to fail to understand how any of this line argumentation is relevant to Schryver’s theses. Do you believe it is relevant? How?

It is relevant to the fact that the one thing, and the only thing, that Joseph Smith was claiming to do was translate Egyptian characters.

This is the same Schryver who thinks the facsimiles should be removed from the canon.

Please cite where Schryver has said he thinks the facsimiles should be removed from the canon. Please include the full context, too. And remember that I’ve seen the quote in Paul Osborn’s sig line. All that says is that Schryver says he “wouldn’t be surprised” if one day the facsimiles are removed from the canon. That is, obviously, a lot different than expressing an opinion that they should be removed from the canon. In fact, in the Q&A session after his FAIR presentation, Schryver said that the facsimiles are a big part of the reason he believes there was an Abraham text on the scrolls. He seems to believe that the facsimiles contain material that is related to, If I recall correctly his words, “LDS temple liturgy.” That doesn’t sound like someone who “thinks the facsimiles should be removed from the canon,” does it?

No, this is just another example of how willing you people are to intentionally misrepresent things. That’s why I’ve learned to never trust anything you say, but to verify everything.

Like claims that Hauglid agrees 100% with Schryver, for example. But since you asked:

I am certainly not bothered at all by the very distinct possibility that Joseph incorrectly assumed that the name he had received by revelation (Shulem) was contained in the characters above the figure. After all, it is the text of the Book of Abraham that was always his primary focus. In my judgment, his work on the facsimiles was secondary in nature, and although he demonstrates definite strokes of inspiration in the process of working with them, I don't consider them of the same stature as the text of the Book of Abraham; I don't believe they were ever intended to be regarded as highly, and they probably should never have been included in the canon along with the text of Book of Abraham. At some point in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see the "facsimiles" removed from the formal canon of the church.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208840375

In other words, Joseph Smith didn't understand how revelation works, so how lucky that we have all these apologists who know better.

I'm talking about the overall church membership audience for the Book of Abraham, and if you have any information about W.W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, etc. knowing Egyptian from random scribblings in the dirt, you let us all know. Cherry-picking a few prominent early Mormons as "the majority of them" must be how you counteract "false stereotypes" of people on the 1830's frontier who had neither a 21st century worldview nor information technology.

The majority of the church membership never saw or even had any knowledge of the EAG. Only a few people did. The majority of them were well-educated men.

"I'm talking about the overall church membership audience for the Book of Abraham....."

How many of those men were well-educated in Egyptology? Just a rough estimate.

Once again you resort to misrepresentation. You’re obviously a person who has no problem with employing deception in your attempts to be perceived as winning an argument. I have no regard for people who do such things.

You have confused me with an apologist. Hey, that reminds me: what was your factual basis for claiming I have all this anger towards Mormons and Mormonism?

And "the issue" is, "even if you're right, so what?" Do you intend to explain that in my lifetime?

Do you mean, “even if Schryver’s theses are correct, so what?”

I can explain that quite easily. If Schryver’s theses are correct, then the Kirtland Egyptian papers are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, and much of the KEP was actually designed to be a tool to encipher some of Joseph Smith’s more doctrinally innovative revelations, for reasons that remain only partially understood. All we know is that they were doing that sort of thing in Kirtland, OH in 1835. The hypothesis of the EAG as a cipher key is entirely consistent with the contemporary historical setting.

Which does not address that Joseph Smith and those around him, and the current LDS Church, claim that the Book of Abraham is a result of translating the Lebolo/Chandler papyrus, and so ultimately you just add another step but don't resolve the problem.

The "contemporary historical setting" is one in which Joseph Smith and those close to him did not keep the papyrus or the purported translation of them a secret, and is not a setting in which an attempt to encipher the Book of Abraham was made. The "more doctrinally innovative" revelations were published in a newspaper. The examples of secret revelations you are alluding to are not comparable.

And since that evidence exists entirely of Will's words, that is exactly what you will have to use.

Really?

So his substantial word study (which I have seen in detail) that shows the obvious dependency of the Egyptian Alphabet on a pre-existing text of Abr. 1 – 3 is just “Will’s words?” His demonstration of the contextual interdependency of the EAG explanations on a pre-existing text of several passages from the Book of Abraham consisted of nothing but “Will’s words?” His display of the W.W. Phelps letter to his wife in May 1835, along with its “specimen of the pure language” that matches identically a portion of the EAG, was just “Will’s words?” His reference to the long-known 1835 enciphering of various elements of Joseph Smith’s revelations was nothing but “Will’s words?” His demonstration of the reference of the EAG to portions of D&C 76 and 88 was just “Will’s words?” His demonstration of the fact that the EAG characters (with very few exceptions) do not come from the papyri was just “Will’s words?”

Yep. Will's words are what you are relying on here, too. And by the way, finding similar language in the writing of the same author writing on the same subject isn't really particularly impressive of a find.

It’s becoming harder and harder to take you seriously. You’re simply not capable of intelligent discourse, although I acknowledge that you are very capable when it comes to mocking people.

Nomad doesn't take me seriously? Whatever will I do? by the way, other than random unsupported assertions about my alleged state of mind and cheerleading for Schryver, where might I find some intelligent discourse of yours? A hyperlink will suffice.

What is truly spectacular about this is that the statement to which I am referring is specifically in the context of Hauglid responding to you.

Hauglid was not talking about the content of Schryver’s FAIR presentation. He was talking about a new finding that has no relationship at all to Schryver’s EAG findings. Hauglid (as well as many others who are qualified to assess them) is in accord with Schryver’s findings as presented at the FAIR conference.

I'm talking about the whole thing. Schyrver says, and you say, that all these experts are unequivocally behind whatever he says, but it turns out that they are more circumspect than he and you are representing.

Once again you resort to misrepresentation. You’re obviously a person who has no problem with employing deception in your attempts to be perceived as winning an argument. I have no regard for people who do such things.

It’s becoming harder and harder to take you seriously. You’re simply not capable of intelligent discourse, which is why I see no point in continuing our conversation—although I will return in a few days to see how you did on the challenge I issued to you above.

Didn't you already say all this? And I already took your "challenge."

[_beastie]

The reason I brought up Anthon, is that he was the only person around that could read, or at least make progress with Egyptian. So...if no one could understand it in the first place, why put a code on it.

As for the rest of your reasons, exegesis and hermeneutics is basically the science of letting a text interpret it's self, how on earth does changing an original text in the pen of the author lend to that?

As far as pure language goes that is a straw man to support this argument, if what is written in the KEP a pure language and does what you claim why don't the current prophets dictate sacred doc's to the saints in code. The "Gospel" means good news and if Mormonism is the restored "gospel" why hide the good news of God? If it wasn't meant, the Book of Abraham, for others to read why did the print it?

This is one you might want to think about Wade.

Mark

Anthon couldn't read Egyptian. Hardly anyone could at that time period. It was the very early days of progress with the Rosetta Stone. Even believers concede this:

Professor Anthon could not have known if the translation was correct for two reasons: (1) The Book of Mormon "Reformed Egyptian" was undecipherable by the learned, and (2) In 1828 only the bare rudiments of translating "Normal Egyptian" were known. The foundation work in Hieroglyphic and Demotic Egyptian had just been completed.3 There were no published tools to aid students of Egyptian. Budge’s Dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics didn't exist until 1920. However, Anthon kept abreast of the latest in Egyptian scholarship4 and could recognize Egyptian characters. He probably did tell Harris that the characters were genuine, as Arial Crowley later demonstrated.5 Anthon was fudging when he told Harris the translation was correct. Anthon undoubtedly saw an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of Egyptology by getting his hands on the plates that were the source of the characters. According to Harris, it was only after hearing the Angel story that Anthon retracted the certificate attesting to the authenticity of the characters. After the retraction, Anthon probably did tell Harris that the characters were a hoax.

http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques20.htm

[_beastie]

I have no idea why you brought Anthon up in relation to the KEP, but as I understand things thus far, the KEP were produced with the intent of serving two purposes: 1) to keep sensative religious information hidden (so as to preserve faith, protect the sacred from the profane, and prevent over-burdening and misuse of sacred knowledge), and 2) for exegetical or hermeneutical purposes (a means for initiates to gain a more in-depth understanding of God and his kingdom). In short, the purpose of the KEP was to function as a "pure language", not unlike what may be found with Kabbalah and Hebrew.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I love it. Supposedly they were keeping sensitive religious information hidden, and yet they proceeded to publish that same information.

On July 5, 1835, the Prophet recorded, "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham…. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth" (HC 2:236). After delays, Joseph Smith appointed two men on November 2, 1837, to raise funds to help translate and print the book of Abraham. But because of further difficulties, he was unable to begin publishing for four more years. The book of Abraham was first printed in three issues of the Times and Seasons on March 1, March 15, and May 16, 1842. These installments contained the entire current book of Abraham, including the three facsimiles. In February 1843, Joseph Smith promised that more of the book of Abraham would be published. However, continued harassment by enemies kept the Prophet from ever publishing more of the record. It did receive considerable notoriety when several prominent eastern newspapers in the United States reprinted Facsimile 1 and part of the text from the Times and Seasons publication.

http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Book_of_Abraham

Yeah, he was really trying to hide sensitive information.

[_beastie]

As I've repeatedly stated, I have only cursory background knowledge on the KEP, so although I think I know the answer to this, I'm still asking to make sure.

Do the KEP contain any genuine Egyptian hieroglyphs that can NOT be found on the papyri?

[_Markk]

The reason I brought up Anthon, is that he was the only person around that could read, or at least make progress with Egyptian. So...if no one could understand it in the first place, why put a code on it.

As for the rest of your reasons, exegesis and hermeneutics is basically the science of letting a text interpret it's self, how on earth does changing an original text in the pen of the author lend to that?

As far as pure language goes that is a straw man to support this argument, if what is written in the KEP a pure language and does what you claim why don't the current prophets dictate sacred doc's to the saints in code. The "Gospel" means good news and if Mormonism is the restored "gospel" why hide the good news of God? If it wasn't meant, the Book of Abraham, for others to read why did the print it?

This is one you might want to think about Wade.

Mark

Anthon couldn't read Egyptian. Hardly anyone could at that time period. It was the very early days of progress with the Rosetta Stone. Even believers concede this:

Professor Anthon could not have known if the translation was correct for two reasons: (1) The Book of Mormon "Reformed Egyptian" was undecipherable by the learned, and (2) In 1828 only the bare rudiments of translating "Normal Egyptian" were known. The foundation work in Hieroglyphic and Demotic Egyptian had just been completed.3 There were no published tools to aid students of Egyptian. Budge’s Dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics didn't exist until 1920. However, Anthon kept abreast of the latest in Egyptian scholarship4 and could recognize Egyptian characters. He probably did tell Harris that the characters were genuine, as Arial Crowley later demonstrated.5 Anthon was fudging when he told Harris the translation was correct. Anthon undoubtedly saw an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of Egyptology by getting his hands on the plates that were the source of the characters. According to Harris, it was only after hearing the Angel story that Anthon retracted the certificate attesting to the authenticity of the characters. After the retraction, Anthon probably did tell Harris that the characters were a hoax.

http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques20.htm

Bingo!

Thanks
MG

[_Markk]

a means for initiates to gain a more in-depth understanding of God and his kingdom

Again, I haven't been following this too much Wade, but you wrote above that you can get a deeper understanding of God and His Kingdom by putting the Book of Abraham translation into a code?

So were these guys receiving revelation when they were creating the code to offer a " more in depth understanding of God..." ? Or were they taking a literal translation of the Book of Abraham and making a literal word for word code from the literal translation.

How would this work Wade? How would a person get a more in depth perception of a text that they are creating a code for, without additional insight?

Be careful Wade, read Eph. 4:14.

Take care and make sure to test this, don't believe it for emotional reasons to make the Book of Abraham work.


mark

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kerry is correct that Anthon wouldn't have been able to read Egyptian, though actually Anthon was probably the single most qualified person in America at the time to comment on the subject. He was at least passingly familiar with Champollion's work, and it's entirely possible that Anthon was the first to suggest that the characters were "Reformed Egyptian".

However, Kerry is wrong when he says that Anthon was fudging when he said the translation was correct. Anthon almost certainly was not even shown a translation. Nearly all the early accounts agree that Joseph had not yet attempted a translation at the time Harris took the characters to Anthon. The "fudging" occurred in the 1838 history, which revised the story of Harris's visit in order to make it a little more faith-promoting. See here for details.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Do the KEP contain any genuine Egyptian hieroglyphs that can NOT be found on the papyri?

Actually, yes. At least a couple. They are astronomical symbols, possibly borrowed from a contemporary almanac.