beastie wrote: Reason doesn’t have much to do with your argument. You and Will keep telling us to accept assertions that are, frankly, unreasonable.
No. We have presented reasonable arguments with the hope that at least some critics will given them thoughtful consideration, even if they ultimately disagree.
You tell us that these men were creating a cipher to hide a document that Joseph Smith tried to publish.
No. We, or at least I, have argued that the KEP may have been intended, in part, as a cipher to keep information hidden (temporarily in some cases) so as to preserve faith, protect the sacred from the profane, and prevent misuse of the sacred knowledge.
I have also argued that KEP were intended as a "pure language", with the presumed hope that it would be used one day to enlighten the minds of those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
You tell us that these men were creating a cipher that no sane person would ever imagine working.
No. I have argued that the KEP are very much like ciphers that many a sane person has used over the last several millenia. (See my paper)
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.
No. What I have essentially told you is that while Masonry does have Egyptian ties and uses symbols that are, or were thought to be Egyptian, those Egyptian/Masonic symbols were not the one's used for several of the characters in the KEP. The pig pen Masonic cipher characters were not Egyptian, and were not thought to be Egyptian.
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.
No. I have repeatedly provided evidence and arguments and reasoned clarifications, not only when introducing my claim, but also when challenged on the claim. You are free not to accept the evidence, but the evidence has been presented.
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.
No. At least Chris and I are in agreement that the KEP characters were drawn from a variety of sources, some papyri and some not. At the very least, the decision as to which characters, and how many, and from where to cull the characters, was clearly arbitrary.
And now you insist there was no reason for you to mention the possible Masonic/Egyptian connection...
No. What I have adhered to is the convention of online discussion in which I focus on making my own case, and I leave others to make their case. I can think of no better reason for such a convention than how you in most every way in this post to me, have mis-characterized what I have been arguing. You really should stick to presenting your own argument, and let me and Will make our's.
In other words, I had no reason to mention the Masonic/Egyptian connection except in the way that was relevant to me making my case.
...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.
No. I spoke hypothetically (for the sake of argument) about not knowing if I would have reason to reject the "Rosetta Stone" theory were the condition met to my satisfaction. As clarified previously, the conditions have yet to be met to my satisfaction, and in fact I am pursuaded otherwise. So, the hypothetical is at this point moot.
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.
No. As Will has iterated, and I have reiterated, and both of us have quoted directly from Will's presentation, the primary reason Will rejected the "Rosetta Stone" theory, is because it was clear to him that the EXPLANATIONS (not to be confused with the characters) were dependant, in part, upon revelations received prior to the papyri arriving in Kirtland. Will explicitly states: "
To the extent this lexicon was built partially on texts that have no relationship to the Egyptian papyri; texts that were written not in Egyptian at all, but in English, then the Alphabet and Grammar simply could not have been intended as a tool to decipher the papyri. Indeed, the more I considered the evidence in this new light, the more I came to believe that these men were not focused on translating the Egyptian papyri at all!"
Perhaps you have confused what Will argued in his presentation with what I have been arguing here and at MaDB. I have been the one making the argument you mentioned--though, after revisiting Will's presentation, I believe his is the more compelling point.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-