KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_wenglund]

As for Beastie's second quote from Hullinger, she ironically omits mentioning that it is taken from a book written by Thomas Smith Webb, called the Freemason's Monitor.

She also omits that the " hieroglyphical figures" under which the Masonic temples are hid, aren't the Masonic ciphers to which Will referred, but rather things like the "blazing star" represented in the "mosaic pavement", found in the floor of the lodge, or emblems like the Pot of Incense, or the Beehive, Tylers Sword, the All-seeing-eye, the anchor and arc, etc.

In other words, Beastie fails to tell us that Webb is using the word "heiroglyph" as a synonym for "symbol" or "emblem". He is using it neoplatonistically to mean: "a pictorial or otherwise physical or artistic representation of an esoteric idea." (See: Hieroglyph )

Yet, in spite of this evident irrelivancy, I am supposed to include in my argument opposing her point of view, the so-called FACT "that many nineteenth century Americans believed Masonic elements were Egyptian in origin, as well as the FACT that it is very possible that Joseph Smith thought to himself and then tried to debunk it." And, if this is not included, it is somehow cause to judge me guilty of the "sin of omission."

The mind reals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

Yet, in spite of this evident irrelivancy, I am supposed to include in my argument opposing her point of view, the so-called FACT "that many nineteenth century Americans believed Masonic elements were Egyptian in origin, as well as the FACT that it is very possible that Joseph Smith thought to himself and then tried to debunk it." And, if this is not included, it is somehow cause to judge me guilty of the "sin of omission."

The mind reals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, you would argue that there is a hard line separating Masonic symbols and Masonic ciphers. Is that right? In other words, one thing has no relevance, in your mind, to the other. Therefore, a discussion of Masonic symbolism in which a connection with ancient Egyptian is posited would be of absolutely no significance to the KEP. Right?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Wade,

Here is an exchange I had with Ben McGuire. Ben wrote,

Finally, I suspect that the pure language was not viewed as the Adamic language, or as the Egyptian language at all, but rather something to be constructed. This is a notion which does occur in unrelated (non-LDS) material that is contemporary with these events. Some time ago, I posted some comments to that effect. I will repeat it here so you don't have to go searching:

This is reasonably in line with Oliver's remarks in the Evening & Morning Star in 1832 in his three part article on the 'Prophecy of Zephaniah'. Certainly this seems to be the basic notion behind the development of the language of Deseret - and would fit into the idea of the early LDS of trying to hasten the Second Coming.

I responded,

I agree with you that a conception along those lines is behind the Deseret Alphabet. However, that does not seem to be the operative conception for Joseph Smith or the sample/specimen.

First of all, note that in the specimen we are told that this is the pure language, not merely a pure language as in the book extract you quoted. And although the sample uses no article at all, its rhetorical structure assumes that "pure language" is reified and existent. Take for example the first question, "What is the name of God in pure Language?" The question assumes that the pure name of God-- not a pure name of God-- is already existent and has only to be revealed.

Secondly, there is other evidence outside of these documents that indicates that Joseph conceived of pure language as original or Adamic language. Brigham Young reported, "He [Joseph] called upon me to pray; in my prayer I spoke in tongues. As soon as we arose from our knees, the brethren flocked around him, and asked his opinion concerning the gift of tongues that was upon me. He told them it was the pure Adamic language. Some said to him they expected he would condemn the gift Brother Brigham had, but he said, 'No, it is of God'" (Millenial Star, vol. xxv p. 439; see also "In Memoriam," Contributor 3:5, February 1882 and Edward Partridge, "Dear Friends and Neighbors," Messenger and Advocate 1:4, January 1835). Ezra Booth reported in 1831 that Zomar, according to Smith, was "the original word for Zion." (Zomar shows up with the same meaning in the EAG.) Moses 6:5-6 reports that "the language of Adam" was "pure and undefiled," and was "given unto as many as called upon God to write by the spirit of inspiration." Those who are convinced that W. W. Phelps authored these documents may be interested to learn that he conceived of the pure language in much the same way Joseph did. "As to the meaning of words," he wrote, "we are sensible, many contradictions in terms exist, and will till wickedness is destroyed, and the Pure Language returned." Here we again have affixed the definite article, and the pure language is conceived as something that will "return".

I could go on, but suffice to say that any assertion that "pure language" meant something other than "original" or "Adamic" language in the sample and specimen faces an uphill battle. The same goes for "Egyptian". Besides being the most natural and obvious reading, the hypothesis that "Egyptian language" in the KEP refers to the language spoken anciently by Egyptians is bolstered by comments from Joseph and his scribes. Referring to words from the "astronomy" material in the GAEL, the Facsimile 2 explanation places these words on the lips of "the Egyptians". For example, "this earth... is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh." Similarly, W. W. Phelps famously wrote, "... Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.] ..." (Times & Seasons Vol. 4, p. 373).

Quite frankly, the pure-language-is-not-Adamic-language and Egyptian-is-not-Egyptian theories appear to be non-starters.

Book of Abraham apologetics are in a sorry state, but it has nothing to do with you neglecting to mention the connection between Masonry and Egypt. Rather, it is a much larger problem of neglecting a large body of fairly explicit evidence in favor of a strategy of tenuous inference and bald assertion. Your post at MADB unfortunately participates in this dynamic.

Peace,

-Chris

[_wenglund]

Wade,

There is far more evidence than the book that discussed Joseph Smith in particular to support my contention that it is a FACT that many people in the nineteenth century believed Masonry was connected with ancient Egypt.

Beastie,

What you consistently fail to grasp is that the FACT, as you describe above, is not in dispute. No one has denied the common 19th century perception that Masonry had ties to ancient Egypt. Both Will and I have freely said as much.

What is in dispute is whether Joseph or Phelps thought that certain segments of the pig pen cipher, employed by Masons, which they may have used for several characters in the KEP, were Egyptian language characters. Reason suggest that they didn't, and none of the quotes you have cited demonstrate otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

So, you would argue that there is a hard line separating Masonic symbols and Masonic ciphers. Is that right?

Not in a general sense, but in certain specific senses it makes sense to differentiate between the Masonic symbols that Webb had in mind and the Masonic ciphers to which Will and I refer, which were nowhere mentioned in Webb's book.

In other words, one thing has no relevance, in your mind, to the other. Therefore, a discussion of Masonic symbolism in which a connection with ancient Egyptian is posited would be of absolutely no significance to the KEP. Right?

Wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Here is an exchange I had with Ben McGuire. Ben wrote,

...

I responded,

...

Book of Abraham apologetics are in a sorry state, but it has nothing to do with you neglecting to mention the connection between Masonry and Egypt. Rather, it is a much larger problem of neglecting a large body of fairly explicit evidence in favor of a strategy of tenuous inference and bald assertion. Your post at MADB unfortunately participates in this dynamic.

Peace, -Chris

I was already well aware of that exchange between you and Ben. But, it was good to be reminded.

And, while I thought you made some excellent points, I reasonably interpretate some of the evidence differently, and thus induced a divergent conclusion. I believe the evidence is such as to leave sufficient room for reasonable people to disagree in this instance.

Certainly, I don't see it as cause to make sweeping denegrations of Book of Abraham apologetics, nor pejoritively characterize the dynamic of my MADB posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Snarl and accusation fest? Don't take it personally, wade. My comments were not directed at you.

Please keep in mind that when mud is thrown it tends to splatter most if not all those in the general path of its trajectory, whether intended or not.

The splattering is even more likely when the mud is slung while responding in agreement to posts that specifically accuse certain parties (like me).

Anyway, I wasn't so much taking what you said personally (though I was somewhat disappointed by the attitude and tone), but rather noting the irony in Beastie's accusations leveled against me. No harm, no foul.

I consider David Bokovoy's approach to these kinds of issues to be far healthier.

There is much about Bro. Bokovoy's approach that may be commended to both apologists and critics alike.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Certainly, I don't see it as cause to make sweeping denegrations of Book of Abraham apologetics, nor pejoritively characterize the dynamic of my MADB posts.

I did not say that your posts were the "cause" of my sweeping denigration of Book of Abraham apologetics. That prize goes to other, better-known thinkers who have perfected the art of studiously ignoring the obvious. But you are, unfortunately, participating in this dynamic by aiding and abetting an interpretation that has little or no a priori plausibility. At least, that's the way it looks to me. *shrug*

[_beastie]

Beastie,

What you consistently fail to grasp is that the FACT, as you describe above, is not in dispute. No one has denied the common 19th century perception that Masonry had ties to ancient Egypt. Both Will and I have freely said as much.

What is in dispute is whether Joseph or Phelps thought that certain segments of the pig pen cipher, employed by Masons, which they may have used for several characters in the KEP, were Egyptian language characters. Reason suggest that they didn't, and none of the quotes you have cited demonstrate otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Reason doesn’t have much to do with your argument. You and Will keep telling us to accept assertions that are, frankly, unreasonable. You tell us that these men were creating a cipher to hide a document that Joseph Smith tried to publish. You tell us that these men were creating a cipher that no sane person would ever imagine working. You tell us that Joseph Smith knew Masonic figures weren’t Egyptian despite the fact that it was commonly believed that Masonry had its roots in ancient Egyptian, and even used some of its figures. You keep assuring us that Joseph Smith somehow would have “known” these figures weren’t Egyptian, without one shred of evidence supporting such an assertion. You keep telling us that the selection of hieroglyphs from the actual papyri were arbitrary, with no rhyme or reason. You expect us to believe that despite the fact that others who have studied this issue, like Kevin and Chris, have demonstrated that to be flat-out false.

And now you insist there was no reason for you to mention the possible Masonic/Egyptian connection, despite the fact that you previously admitted that if it could be demonstrated that Joseph Smith and his cohorts believed those borrowed figures were, in fact, Egyptian, you would have no reason to reject Nibley’s theory. And, despite Will’s bluster otherwise, it’s clear that in his presentation he used the fact that these elements were NOT Egyptian as the primary reason to reject Nibley’s theory - and your own words reflect that understanding.

Yet it’s not worth mentioning.

[_Kishkumen]

Not in a general sense, but in certain specific senses it makes sense to differentiate between the Masonic symbols that Webb had in mind and the Masonic ciphers to which Will and I refer, which were nowhere mentioned in Webb's book.

Just because Webb did not explicitly mention these ciphers does not mean his thoughts on Masonic symbols are of no value to the topic.

In other words, one thing has no relevance, in your mind, to the other. Therefore, a discussion of Masonic symbolism in which a connection with ancient Egyptian is posited would be of absolutely no significance to the KEP. Right?

Wrong.

Then how would they be significant?