KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_beastie]

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-

I only have time for one quick point -

Took you some time to figure that out, eh? So apparently the problem isn't that I'm a "hardened apostate", but rather that Will hasn't been very clear in his points. Unless, of course, you're just slow.

Here's what is interesting about this section you quote (and which I have pointed out at least twice before): Will started this portion of his presentation by asserting he was going to clearly lay out why Nibley's Rosetta Stone theory should be rejected. Yet, in his wrap-up, look at what he says:

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.

Nibley's theory wasn't that the A&G was being used as a tool to decipher the papyri. It was that the already translated papyri were being used to create a Rosetta Stone to translate future Egyptian documents.

[_beastie]

Apparently, some people still believe elements of the Royal Arch are Egyptian in origin:


http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/r ... _word.html

[_William Schryver]

Chris, I too have found it odd that some have wholeheartedly accepted that there are Masonic characters in the EA, but as soon as the same characters show up in the Anthon transcript, the characters are dismissed out of hand as pure random chance.

Not nearly as odd as I find it that, notwithstanding my repeated efforts to explain why it doesn't matter either way, you and many others here continue to delude yourselves into believing it does.

<sigh>

My theses remain unaffected whether or not the characters in question were or were not believed to be Egyptian; did or did not appear on the alleged "Anthon Transcript".

[_George Miller]

Chris, I too have found it odd that some have wholeheartedly accepted that there are Masonic characters in the EA, but as soon as the same characters show up in the Anthon transcript, the characters are dismissed out of hand as pure random chance.

Not nearly as odd as I find it that, notwithstanding my repeated efforts to explain why it doesn't matter either way, you and many others here continue to delude yourselves into believing it does.
<sigh>
My theses remain unaffected whether or not the characters in question were or were not believed to be Egyptian; did or did not appear on the alleged "Anthon Transcript".

Will- If the Anthon Transcript contains Royal Arch cipher characters then this argues strongly for Joseph Smith being the source behind the Royal Arch cipher characters on the specimen.

[_William Schryver]

Will- If the Anthon Transcript contains Royal Arch cipher characters then this argues strongly for Joseph Smith being the source behind the Royal Arch cipher characters on the specimen.

Why does it "argue strongly" for that conclusion?

And, even if the conclusion could be incontrovertibly proven, why do you think that would affect my primary(1) or secondary(2) theses at all?



1 = The dependency of the A&G on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

2 = The fact that the A&G is designed to "translate" from pre-existing English texts to arbitrarily selected symbols/glyphs.

[_George Miller]

And, even if the conclusion could be incontrovertibly proven, why do you think that would affect my primary(1) or secondary(2) theses at all?

1 = The dependency of the A&G on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

2 = The fact that the A&G is designed to "translate" from pre-existing English texts to arbitrarily selected symbols/glyphs.

Will- It doesn't affect either of these theses. It does cast doubt on these theses.

1. The A&G were designed to encipher the pre-existing English text of the Book of Abraham into a code that the participants thought was unrelated to Egyptian.

2. The theses that W. W. Phelps independently placed the Royal Arch cipher characters next to the specimen of the pure language.

As to your other theses, I am open to the possibility that there was a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. I have carefully reviewed your presentation on the internet, but I remain unconvinced by the data provided therein. I await further data when you publish your finding at which point I will reconsider my position.

[_William Schryver]

GM:

1. The A&G were designed to encipher the pre-existing English text of the Book of Abraham into a code that the participants thought was unrelated to Egyptian.

I’ve never argued this.

Furthermore, it’s irrelevant.

2. The theses that W. W. Phelps independently placed the Royal Arch cipher characters next to the specimen of the pure language.

Why?

You see, you can assert this over and over and over. But you’ve still failed to explain why the alleged presence of the cipher characters on the Anthon transcript leads to this conclusion.

Furthermore, it’s irrelevant to either my primary or secondary theses.

Additionally, I never argued that Phelps “independently” provided the characters in question. What we do know is that they first appear in a private letter from him to his wife.

There are also many other elements of evidence (both text critical and historical) that combine to suggest that it was, indeed, William Phelps who was the primary innovator behind this project.

[Guest]

Will- If the Anthon Transcript contains Royal Arch cipher characters then this argues strongly for Joseph Smith being the source behind the Royal Arch cipher characters on the specimen.

Why does it "argue strongly" for that conclusion?

Joseph's belief that the Freemasonry was ancient (as opposed to Phelps's published belief that Freemasonry had no ancient origins) makes it much more likely that it was Joseph that made the claim that these characters were associated with the ancient Adamic language. The presence of the Royal Arch cipher characters on the Anthon transcript excludes the possibility that Joseph would have gotten this idea from Phelps. If Joseph had this idea in the late 1820s then I find it highly likely it was Joseph (not Phelps) that included these characters in the the specimen. I am well aware that the specimen appears in a letter from Phelps to his wife. I have no confidence in the supposition that because it is contained in a letter from Phelps to his wife, that this means it was Phelps who was the one who instigated the placement of these figures next to the Adamic translations into English.

[_George Miller]

Furthermore, it’s irrelevant to either my primary or secondary theses.

Agreed as I stated above.

Additionally, I never argued that Phelps “independently” provided the characters in question. What we do know is that they first appear in a private letter from him to his wife.

There are also many other elements of evidence (both text critical and historical) that combine to suggest that it was, indeed, William Phelps who was the primary innovator behind this project.

Will you say above that you have "never argued that Phelps 'independently' provided the characters in question". So let me ask you do you think Phelps "independently" came up with these characters or was their addition at least partially dependent on Joseph Smith?

You also claim that W. W. Phelps was the primary innovator. I am interested what role you think Joseph played in this project? Personally, I think he instigated, participated, and led the project. Phelps probably worked in an advisory role and as Joseph's scribe.

[_George Miller]

There are also many other elements of evidence (both text critical and historical) that combine to suggest that it was, indeed, William Phelps who was the primary innovator behind this project.

William - What evidence exists that Phelps was primary innovator behind "the specimen of some of the 'pure language'" section of Phelps's letter? I am well aware that the original revelation did not contain these characters nor the final Adamic language entry. However, Joseph Smith was revising revelations and preparing them for publication during this period of time and there was nothing stopping Joseph from adding the Royal Arch Cipher characters during one of the sessions which Joseph Smith and his scribes worked.