KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[Tator]

When will “you people” understand? Will is just too much of An Important Scholar to actually engage Kevin’s points, just like he is too much of An Important Scholar to actually debate Brent on a podcast. I mean, pfft! Whoever would debate on a podcast??? Surely no Famous Scholar the likes of Will would!! I mean, no one like Richard Dawkins would debate on a podcast, surely, and who among us would doubt Will belongs in such a category! No, no, Will is such An Important Scholar that he is entitled to turn “I’ll debate Brent in a heartbeat” into a long list of demands that would take a lot of time and expense on Brent’s part. But I guess that would buy Will some time to do something he neglected earlier: homework.

No, no, such An Important Scholar is far better spending his time attacking the characters, ages, and looks of his critics, as Will does here:

viewtopic.php?p=356092#p356092

To Brent

How touching.

To be sure, you should have known better--and no doubt did. To the extent you were made a "victim," you were hardly an unwitting one. I'm sure you had your suspicions long before desperation transformed the cunning forger into just another banal murderer, and yet you enthusiastically shilled for the man and tacitly supported his ideological agenda. Still do, after a fashion.

So, while I'm sure the faux victimhood plays well among those who are either too young or too ignorant of the facts to know better, there are still many people who are aware of the role you played in the Hofmann affair, including me and my friend Bob Stott, who has been quite amused to learn how you spin the history of those days now so long ago.

Libel?

It’s hardly libel to suggest that you shared in Hofmann’s ideological agenda, especially when you have continued to pursue it to the present day.

Even so, I think it might be best for you to continue hoping I keep confidences. Just remember that there are still people around who know your role in Hofmann’s pre-murderous shenanigans.

I do have to admit that the most hilarious aspect of the entire affair is the thought of you hiding in a darkened basement consumed with the terror that you were the next target. Talk about self-delusion run amok ...

to beastie:

Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
”You’re only as young as the women you feel.”


And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.

Aside from launching deeply offensive personal attacks (based on incorrect information), apparently he is as careless with his research for personal attacks as he was with his research for his Saving the Book of Abraham, in which he totally ignored the fact that Smith and others likely believed the figures they obtained from the Masonic cipher, if that is where they obtained it, were, in fact, Egyptian. Will seems to think that the best defense of his theory is to simply restate his thesis. Perhaps he thinks if he restates it emphatically enough, people will actually mistake a restatement for a defense. He is, after all, An Actor and understands the importance of confidence and persuasion.

[_beastie]

Regarding the Egyptian Counting documents (EC), I have five questions for you (some of these are partial repeats from earlier questions to which I didn't get specific answers):

1. Who do you believe produced the EC? We know that the document is in the handwriting of Phelps, so he clearly was involved. But, what about Joseph Smith? Is there any evidence that he had anything to do with the EC?

I don't know, but see no reason to not assume that it was the same folks who were involved in the rest of the KEP.

2. When do you believe the EC was produced? Paul O. makes a convincing argument that the GAEL is somewhat dependant upon the EC, which would mean that the EC was produced prior to the GAEL. Do you agree?

Again, I don't know, and don't think it is particularly relevant. Nibley's theory of back-engineering a tool to translate future Egyptian documents makes sense to me. And, as I demonstrated with my lengthy quotes from Will's presentation, the only way he imagined he dismissed Nibley's theory was to demonstrate and emphasize that there were non Egyptian characters in the KEP. (I feel fairly certain Nibley knew this, as well.) Yet now he seems to concede that the people involved in the KEP probably mistakenly thought they were Egyptian characters, without seeming to recognize the problems that creates for successfully dismissing Nibley's theory.

3. If so, do you believe that the EC was produced prior to, or concurrent with, the EA (Egyptian Alphabets)?

see answer 2

4. What about the characters in the EC? I realize that you believe that Joseph might have thought they were Egyptian. But, do you believe the characters were derived from the papyri? If so, from where? (How can non-Egyptian characters be derived from the Egyptian Papyri?) If not, wouldn't Phelps and Joseph know that? And, if the characters were not from the papyri, and were known to not be from the papyri, then they obviously were not intended to be used to academically translate the papyri. Right? I mean, no one would think that characters that are not on the papyri could be used to academically translate the papyri.

You consistently ignore two things. One is that Joseph Smith was well known for filling in the gaps. He did so on the facsimile, there's no reason to doubt he would fill in the gaps on the text, as well. The second is that possibility that Nibley was correct, and this was designed more as a tool to translate other Egyptian documents, used as a sort of Rosetta stone.

5. What about the sounds in the EC? Again, I realize that you believe that Joseph may have thought the sounds were Egyptian. However, we know for certain that the sounds didn't come from the papyri--and this because the papyri were written, and not audio recorded, and thus no sounds were emitted by the papyri, and none of the sounds were written out on the papyri. And, since the sounds in the EC were evidently not from the papyri, then there is no way the non-papyri sounds could be used to academically translate the papyri, and no reason to believe the EC sounds were intended to academically translate the papyri. Right?

Again, this fits within Nibley's theory of creating a tool to translate future Egyptian documents. Joseph Smith clearly was interested in being able to orally articulate thoughts in ancient languages, so he would be interested in how to correctly SPEAK what had been translated, as well.

Now, I have two questions for you:

1. Now that it has been demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al likely believed the characters they were inserting in the KEP were Egyptian, what reason do you have to reject Nibley's back-engineered Rosetta Stone theory?

2. You answered my question about what was so sensitive it had to be encrypted by simply saying: what they put on the KEP, d'oh'! That isn't helpful, Wade. In the history of this time period, leaders had the tendency to use code for information that was sensitive because they were hiding the identities of leaders involved in certain issues. Theology wasn't encrypted. Theology was circulated as much as possible. Moreover, as has been repeatedly reminded, Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham - the same information that you claim was so sensitive it had to be encrypted. So I want to know what, exactly, in that text was so sensitive? And why, given its sensitive nature, did Joseph Smith try to publish it?

[_Kevin Graham]

Again, it is as if wade disappeared for a month and decided to come back with the same exact talking points from WIll's presentation that have already been refuted. These questions are just stupid and are designed around a straw man.

Of course Joseph Smith was the one behind the Egyptian Counting document. Any attempt to translate an otherwise unknown language was the duty of the Prophet who had the keys to do so. That it was in Phelp's handwriting is hardly surprising since he served as his scribe. Mystery solved. No convoluted bunny trails about cyphers or encoding necessary.

As far as there being no genuine Egyptian characters in the counting, well, duh! All this does is further prove the fraud. Smith believed these symbols were genuinely Egyptian the same way he genuinely believed anubis was a slave simply because he was black. All of this dovetails very well with Joseph Smith's history of "getting it wrong" Egyptologically.

Proof wade simply doesn't get it, but is persistent in hiding behind this straw man: "...no reason to believe the EC sounds were intended to academically translate the papyri."

As has been shown time and time again, this wasn't the argument. At best, Will decided to pick on some obscure RLDS historian who he had never even heard of before reading Chris Smith's publication; but little else actually deals with the arguments we've presented here. Will fooled people, including the media, into thinking he has actually dealt with our arguments.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Why would some one create a code for a document that no one could read in the first place?

You never answered this...third request?

MG

But, I did answer this question, though perhaps not in a way that you understood. So, let me try again. If you look carefully at the KEP, you will notice that the plaintext explanations are in ENGLISH, which can, in fact, be read in the first place--as witnessed to by the fact that we ENGLISH speaking critics and apologist are able to read it and talk about it. The code was created to protect those readable ENGLISH explanations. Obviously. Had there been no translation into ENGLISH, then you may have a point. But there was a translation, and so you don't. Did you get it this time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Markk]

Wade,

Why would some one create a code for a document that no one could read in the first place?

You never answered this...third request?

MG

But, I did answer this question, though perhaps not in a way that you understood. So, let me try again. If you look carefully at the KEP, you will notice that the plaintext explanations are in ENGLISH, which can, in fact, be read in the first place--as witnessed to by the fact that we ENGLISH speaking critics and apologist are able to read it and talk about it. The code was created to protect those readable ENGLISH explanations. Obviously. Had there been no translation into ENGLISH, then you may have a point. But there was a translation, and so you don't. Did you get it this time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Huh? Then why did he translate it into english? Who was privy to the KEP at the time?
If someone got ahold of the KEP that wasn't supose to, they could simply de-code anything anyway.
MG

[_wenglund]

Hi Beastie,

I appreciate your willingness to do what Kevin declined to do (for obvious reasons--the fog of his transparent deflections to the contrary notwithstanding). However, the questions were designed for critics who have taken the position that the KEP were intended as a key to translate the Chandler papyri into the Book of Abraham. Since this is evidently not your position, then it is understandable that you would be willing to answer, while those holding the position in question would not.

Just so you know, the EC was in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps. His handwriting also appears on other KEP documents, and this more than any of the other principles involved. So, he definitately had a part in the rest of the KEP project, and was likely THE key person involved with the KEP.

Also, I am aware that Joseph may have filled in the gaps. However, what you may not know is that he didn't fill in the gaps with the characters in the EC.

Anyway, I will gladly return the favor and answer your questions.

Now, I have two questions for you:

1. Now that it has been demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al likely believed the characters they were inserting in the KEP were Egyptian, what reason do you have to reject Nibley's back-engineered Rosetta Stone theory?

I don't know that it has been demonstrated. To me, that question is still open to serious debate. But, for the sake of discussion, let's go ahead and grant that it has been demonstrated, in which case I don't know that I would have a reason to reject a reverse-engineered theory. In fact, that was my opinion prior to learning that many of the KEP characters were not Egyptian--though I viewed the KEP more as a linguistic instruction tool rather than a Rosetta Stone.

2. You answered my question about what was so sensitive it had to be encrypted by simply saying: what they put on the KEP, d'oh'! That isn't helpful, Wade. In the history of this time period, leaders had the tendency to use code for information that was sensitive because they were hiding the identities of leaders involved in certain issues. Theology wasn't encrypted. Theology was circulated as much as possible. Moreover, as has been repeatedly reminded, Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham - the same information that you claim was so sensitive it had to be encrypted. So I want to know what, exactly, in that text was so sensitive? And why, given its sensitive nature, did Joseph Smith try to publish it?

You are mistaken about religious information, other than the identity of religious leaders, not being hidden. In fact, it was quite a common practice. Many of the prominant secret societies of that day, and generation before then, were religious in nature. It may interest you to learn that back in that day the Vatican had its own cryptography department.

I am currently in the process of writing up a brief history of religious use of ciphers. I posted a thread at MaDB not long ago where I spoke of ciphers and "pure language" that were instituted by God. It didn't generate much interest, but you are welcome to look it up. Or, you can wait until I finish working on the section of religious ciphers instituted by men, and I will attach the combined history to a thread at MaDB.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Huh? Then why did he translate it into english?

Because it would be useful for initiates to know. Obviously.

Who was privy to the KEP at the time?

Joseph and his scribes, as well as a single visitor some time in November of 1835 when the project was close to being abandoned.

If someone got ahold of the KEP that wasn't supose to, they could simply de-code anything anyway. MG

Right. The same is true of any cipher or code. Were such a breach of security to happen, it would necessitate the development of a new set of cipher characters or codes--that is, unless some other means were devised for accomplishing the same dual purpose of a cipher. I believe that other means was devised, which, in part, was why the KEP project was abandoned. Can you guess what that other means may have been? (I think I asked you this before, but you didn't take the bait)

One of the benefits of the KEP as a cipher is that it isn't self-evident that it is a cipher. In a way, it is what may be termed a steganographic cipher--a cipher that doesn't appear to be a cipher. In fact, judging from the negative reactions of many of the critics to the very suggestion that the KEP is a cipher, speaks to its successful design as a cipher.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sock puppet]

Huh? Then why did he translate it into english?

Because it would be useful for initiates to know. Obviously.

Who was privy to the KEP at the time?

Joseph and his scribes, as well as a single visitor some time in November of 1835 when the project was close to being abandoned.

If someone got ahold of the KEP that wasn't supose to, they could simply de-code anything anyway. MG

Right. The same is true of any cipher or code. Were such a breach of security to happen, it would necessitate the development of a new set of cipher characters or codes--that is, unless some other means were devised for accomplishing the same dual purpose of a cipher. I believe that other means was devised, which, in part, was why the KEP project was abandoned. Can you guess what that other means may have been? (I think I asked you this before, but you didn't take the bait)

One of the benefits of the KEP as a cipher is that it isn't self-evident that it is a cipher. In a way, it is what may be termed a steganographic cipher--a cipher that doesn't appear to be a cipher. In fact, judging from the negative reactions of many of the critics to the very suggestion that the KEP is a cipher, speaks to its successful design as a cipher.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, like Kishkumen, I am impressed by the time and effort you have devoted, and the grasp and analysis that you are achieving. However, a cipher anticipates that the encoded text will need to be disseminated in less secure means than the cipher key itself can be kept. In that way, unintended recipients without the cipher key will not be able to detect the text, and those that have the cipher key will be able to de-code and read it. So the question is, what dissemination of encoded text was needed broader and later than the earlier, more limited dissemination of the cipher key itself?

What, prey tell, was the reason to keep the light of any revelations from God hid under a bushel? Weren't the revelations in the D&C and the BoAbr itself part of the gospel that Joseph Smith was restoring and proclaiming to the world?

Now with this last paragraph you wrote, you've done the 'double secret probation' thing. Keeping it pop culture and kitsch, do read Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

[_Darth J]

One of the benefits of the KEP as a cipher is that it isn't self-evident that it is a cipher. In a way, it is what may be termed a steganographic cipher--a cipher that doesn't appear to be a cipher. In fact, judging from the negative reactions of many of the critics to the very suggestion that the KEP is a cipher, speaks to its successful design as a cipher.

One of the benefits of Stonehenge as an alien landing pad is that it isn't self-evident that it is an alien landing pad. In a way, it is what may be termed a disguised alien landing pad--an alien landing pad that doesn't appear to be an alien landing pad. In fact, judging from the negative reactions of many of the skeptics to the very suggestion that Stonehenge is an alien landing pad, speaks to its successful design as an alien landing pad.

[_wenglund]

Wade, like Kishkumen, I am impressed by the time and effort you have devoted, and the grasp and analysis that you are achieving. However, a cipher anticipates that the encoded text will need to be disseminated in less secure means than the cipher key itself can be kept. In that way, unintended recipients without the cipher key will not be able to detect the text, and those that have the cipher key will be able to de-code and read it. So the question is, what dissemination of encoded text was needed broader and later than the earlier, more limited dissemination of the cipher key itself?

This is an excellent question, and one that I think the answer to which may have ultimately led to the dimize of the KEP project. The KEP design works somewhat well in theory, but not so well in practice.

Fortunately, a much better system was later devised, and is still in use today. Can you guess what it was/is? (Hint: there was a major milestone in the history of the Church that occured less that a year after the KEP project was inaugerated which eventually may have rendered the KEP cipher moot.)

What, prey tell, was the reason to keep the light of any revelations from God hid under a bushel?

Another excellent question, and one I answered, in part, in the MaDB thread I mentioned to Beastie, and am now in the process of completing the other part. Briefly, though, it has to do metaphorically with the tension between the Tree of Knowledge and the Veil. I will look for a link to the thread and post it when I find it.

Here is the link: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... -or-cipher

Weren't the revelations in the D&C and the BoAbr itself part of the gospel that Joseph Smith was restoring and proclaiming to the world?

Yes, eventually, and for the most part.

Now with this last paragraph you wrote, you've done the 'double secret probation' thing. Keeping it pop culture and kitsch, do read Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.

I appreciate the suggestion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-