KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_William Schryver]

beastlie,

I swear, sometimes I can't decide if you're merely obtuse or just deliberately deceptive. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Yes, Freemasonry does claim links to ancient Egypt--but its claims in this respect (which have long-since been proven to be false) are irrelevant.

The so-called Masonic Cipher (or, more accurately, the "pigpen" cipher) cannot be surmised as having similarly ancient links. It is a mono-alphabetic substitution cipher designed to encrypt the letters of the English alphabet, hence its twenty-six compartments which form grid fragments, one for each letter. It dates to the mid- to late-17th century, and was primarily used by American Freemasons.

I have done a considerable amount of research concerning the cipher. Nowhere is it hinted that either the Masons themselves or anyone else ever believed the cipher to have Egyptian origins. Indeed, they knew it did not. Since current and former Masons were involved in the production of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, it is absurd to assume that they believed the pigpen cipher to have Egyptian origins. They would have known better.

[_William Schryver]

Even better...

Joseph Smith's interest in Egypt was also connected to Masonry. Even before Smith's Canandaigua trial for glass-looking in January 1828, John Sheldon had reportedly written a letter in Masonic hieroglyphics to General Solomon Van Rensselaer, the Revolutionary War hero.79 At the time it sensationally underlined the claim of the Explanation of the First Degree Tracing Board: "the usages and customs of Masons have ever corresponded with those of the Egyptian philosophers, to which they bear a near affinity.… they [p.111] concealed their particular tenets … under hieroglyphical figures."80

The Saratoga Baptist Association at Milton, New York, in 1828 took that claim seriously, charging in the second of its fifteen-point indictments that Masonic rites "correspond with the Egyptian."81 The Egyptian obelisks upon which Champollion and Seyffarth had recently turned public attention were said to have been inscribed with Masonic hieroglyphics.82 Combining the Egyptian on the marble pillar fragments, which Solomon could not translate, with the unknown script in which God's name was written on the gold plate in the Royal Arch might produce "reformed Egyptian," which could only be translated with a key which worked by revelation. Like Solomon, Smith received revelation in the manner of a Masonic priest.

Joseph Smith condemned current expressions of Masonry but nevertheless accepted Masonry as a truly ancient form confirming God's relationships with humans from Adam on. He restored a Mason unencumbered by the corruptions and heresies of the lodges and churches in western New York.83 The high percentage of ex-Masons among Smith's early converts in the 1830s, when the anti-Masonic conflict was still fresh, indicates that many were looking not for rejection but for reform. Masonic legend provided support for Christian tradition and a rich lode to mine in combating deism. Joseph Smith took what he felt was true and transformed it for his own use.84

Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism

by
Robert N. Hullinger

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/sk ... apter8.htm

Incidentally, the term "Masonic Hieroglyphics" does not refer to the Masonic cipher, in case you were wondering. The Masons used all kinds of ciphers as well as hieroglyphic symbols whose origins date back to the Knights Templar. The pigpen cipher was a late innovation, as I noted above.

Feel free, if you are so inclined, to read a bit more about these things at these online sources:

Royal Arch Degree

Magical Scripts and Cipher Alphabets

Now, if you want to make an argument that the Masonic cipher was believed to have Hebrew origins, you might be on to something. They clearly did associate some of their symbols with ancient Hebrew temple motifs. Since William Phelps et al. were clearly making deliberate selections of characters from various sources, they may have picked the seven Masonic cipher characters I identified in the EA documents because they believed them to have some ancient significance.

But again, as I have said several times, even if they did believe that the Masonic cipher had Egyptian origins, it doesn't negatively impact my theses at all! As in, not even in the slightest!

Why you can't get that through your beastlie little head remains a mystery to me.

[_beastie]

beastlie,

I swear, sometimes I can't decide if you're merely obtuse or just deliberately deceptive. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Yes, Freemasonry does claim links to ancient Egypt--but its claims in this respect (which have long-since been proven to be false) are irrelevant.

The so-called Masonic Cipher (or, more accurately, the "pigpen" cipher) cannot be surmised as having similarly ancient links. It is a mono-alphabetic substitution cipher designed to encrypt the letters of the English alphabet, hence its twenty-six compartments which form grid fragments, one for each letter. It dates to the mid- to late-17th century, and was primarily used by American Freemasons.

I have done a considerable amount of research concerning the cipher. Nowhere is it hinted that either the Masons themselves or anyone else ever believed the cipher to have Egyptian origins. Indeed, they knew it did not. Since current and former Masons were involved in the production of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, it is absurd to assume that they believed the pigpen cipher to have Egyptian origins. They would have known better.

I didn't say the cipher, or how they used the figures, was often thought to be Egyptian. I said - as my references support - that the figures used were thought to be Egyptian in origin. I don't think anyone thought the Masons were actually writing using Egyptian hieroglyphs in a way that would be readable to Egyptians. People believed that the source of the figures that the Masons used in their own ways were originally Egyptian.

To simplify it: Joseph Smith did use some Egyptian figures to create his "cipher", according to your theory. (you just maintain, against all evidence, that he picked them out arbitrarily) It would be accurate to point to those particular elements and say "those figures were Egyptian in origin", and in so saying, one would not be saying that "the cipher that Joseph Smith created was Egyptian in origin."

But again, as I have said several times, even if they did believe that the Masonic cipher had Egyptian origins, it doesn't negatively impact my theses at all! As in, not even in the slightest!

Why you can't get that through your beastlie little head remains a mystery to me.

Oh, perhaps because you emphasized, over and over, that the fact that portions of the KEP didn't contain Egyptian characters was your justification for rejecting Nibley's theory. Heck, even your ardent fan Wade couldn't identify a reason to reject Nibley's theory if it could be proven that Joseph Smith believed the figures were Egyptian.

[_beastie]

Sharing, once again, the reason why whether or not Joseph Smith believed the Masonic figures (note for those who need extra help: I'm not talking about the cipher itself, but rather the figures used to create the cipher) were Egyptian in origin is extremely relevant to Will's theory.

From Will's presentation:

”These men were not focused on translating the papyri at all. One of the keys to this conclusion was my discovery that of the 69 characters to which explanations were assigned, most of them are not even Egyptian and do not appear on the papyri!”

Now, if you listen to the tape in which Will makes this assertion, on part 2, you can hear the emphasis in his voice: this is a “key”. This is important. This is why he was able to dismiss Nibley’s reverse engineering theory. And lest there is any doubt, he then says:

Let me repeat. Most of the characters explained in the Egyptian Alphabet documents are not Egyptian, and do not appear on the Egyptian papyri in question.”

And yet now he claims to not care at all if, in fact, Joseph Smith probably [b]did think the characters were Egyptian. And, of course, Will proceeds to mention that the characters were obtained from a Masonic cipher, without ever mentioning the fact that it was likely Joseph Smith believed those figures were, in fact, Egyptian, because that was a very common myth about Masonry.

In discussing the Counting Document, Will again affirms how important it is to his theory that elements contained on these documents are not even Egyptian:

”What is most interesting, however, is that the characters in the Egyptian Counting Document are very obviously not Egyptian.”

He underlined “not” in case you missed how important this is.

And yet now Will claims to not care that Joseph Smith probably believed the characters were, in fact, Egyptian? Will even supports my assertions here by telling us that one of the Masonic ciphers was based on Sanskrit characters. So, while the Wades of today insist that Joseph Smith would have recognized Sanskrit, the reality is that, due to the common myths about Masonry and ancient Egypt, Joseph Smith probably thought they were Egyptian characters.

Will asks in hushed tones of great import:

”Why is this document title Egyptian Counting? There is nothing Egyptian about it. Nothing at all.”

Will again reminds us how important it is to his theory that nonEgyptian elements were used in the KEP when discussing his inherently contradictory theory of pure language (contradictory in that he tells us repeatedly that they viewed the Egyptian language as having escaped the corruption of the Tower of Babel so hence, was synonymous with “pure language”, but then telling us that the “pure language” theory meant they did not intend to translate Egyptian):

”Thus, they see no contradiction in titling as Egyptian Counting a document that contains not a single element that is Egyptian. Nor do they perceive any contradiction in titling the other documents Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, notwithstanding the fact most of the characters they translated are not Egyptian, nor are the sourced texts themselves. ”

Whoops! Now Will tells us that it is irrelevant to his theory that Joseph Smith may have, in fact, believed that elements he obtained from a Masonic cipher, were, in fact, Egyptian!!!!

[_beastie]

Hi Beastie,

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.

I'm using Wade's words to try and help Will understand why whether or not Joseph Smith may have believed the Masonic figures were Egyptian in origin is, indeed, extremely relevant to his theory. If even Will's most ardent fan can't figure out what the other "far more definitive" reason is for rejecting Nibley's theory, then Will's theory is in serious trouble.

I still don't see a clear answer to my question. Does anyone else? Did Will know about this possible Masonic/Egyptian connection? He insinuates, without actually stating, that he did. If so, he did a serious disservice to his audience by not mentioning it. I mean, if he thinks he can minimize or debunk it, fine, do so: but to simply ignore it, if he knew about it in advance really is dishonest.

[_Kishkumen]

Did Will know about this possible Masonic/Egyptian connection? He insinuates, without actually stating, that he did. If so, he did a serious disservice to his audience by not mentioning it. I mean, if he thinks he can minimize or debunk it, fine, do so: but to simply ignore it, if he knew about it in advance really is dishonest.

My guess? He is using critics' comments to figure out what he needs to write. He probably had no idea going into his presentation that his claims about the non-Egyptian characters would be a problem. It took others pointing it out to him before he started to pursue the problem. Will reveals only what he wants you to see and tries, at all times, to maintain the facade of being in perfect control of the situation.

[_beastie]

My guess? He is using critics' comments to figure out what he needs to write. He probably had no idea going into his presentation that his claims about the non-Egyptian characters would be a problem. It took others pointing it out to him before he started to pursue the problem. Will reveals only what he wants you to see and tries, at all times, to maintain the facade of being in perfect control of the situation.

That would be my guess, as well. It explains the coyness of his "answers" to my direct and simple question, and explains the diversionary attempts (like pretending I said the cipher itself was thought to be of Egyptian origin).

[_Paul Osborne]

I went in there and robbed several of his KEP photos and he couldn't figure out how to stop me so he just shut down his "website" altogether

THAT IS THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS GODDMAMN MESSAGE BOARD! HOLY JOSEPH SMITH! MY STOMACH HURTS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

WILLIAM IS SUCH A DUMMY.

PAUL O

[_Kishkumen]

Or next time I'm in a major hurry, I'll endeavor to never make any typographical errors (thus adding to my long and well-established history of them). Heaven knows how typically atrocious my spelling and grammar are in comparison to the literary giants who post on this message board.

Well, Will, you're the one who undertook to correct beastie over the absence of a period. Now you pretend that it is someone else who was the major dill weed, when clearly it was you. But, not to worry, I understand that you are incapable of admitting your mistakes (like forgetting that it was alii and not alli), while being perfectly happy to run down others for minor errors. If you can't take it, maybe you shouldn't be so eager to dish it out.

[_Paul Osborne]

He's a college drop out

And he dropped acid and liked to get high! Never mind Spencer Whore Kimball and the idiot goofballs running the church! William could bong down!

Yeah!! William knows how to party. I like William Schryver because he's cool. He knows a thing or two. Don't underestimate him.

Acid heads stick together in the long run. That's a fact. Ain't that right, William, bro?

Paul O