KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_wenglund]

Good people,

In addition to the compelling arguments that have been made and are continuing to be made by Will and Daniel and others for the priority of portions of the Book of Abraham to that of the KEP, there are several other practical considerations that ought reasonably give serious pause in thinking that the KEP were intended to academically translate the Egyptian papyri, let alone into the Book of Abraham.

First, even if we charitable grant the implausible insinuation that Phelps or Joseph thought the KEP characters in question were Egyptian in language, we can't excape the fact that the characters in question are not on the Egyptian papyri. And, since one cannot use non-papyri characters to translate characters on the papyri, then reason suggests that there must have been some other explanation for the non-papyri characters than that they were intended to translate the papyri. There must have been some other purpose in mind for those characters.

I believe a reasonable case can be made that their purpose may have been to construct a "pure language" that had the dual function, like Kabbalah, of acting as a cipher (so as to preserve faith, protect the sacred from the profane, and to prevent over-budening and misuse of sacred knowledge) as well as an exegetical or hermeneutical tool for enlightening the undersanding of initiates.

Second, even if we grant the implausible insinuation that Phelps or Joseph thought the non-Egyptian sounds of the KEP were Egyptian, we can't excape the fact that the Egyptian papyri were written and not an audio recording. The KEP sounds, then, could not be used to translate the written characters on the papyri. As such, reasons suggests that there must have been some other purpose in mind for those sounds than translating the written papyri. Again, I believe a reasonable case can be made as explained above--a "pure language" that can be both written and oral..

Third, given the more plausible scenerio that Phelps and Joseph DID know that the Non-Egyptian characters and sound were not Egyptian language, then one canNOT reasonably assume that the non-Egyptian characters and sounds were intended to be used to translate Egyptian characters on the papyri. There must have been some other purpose in mind for those non-Egyptian characters and sounds. See above.

-To be continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot ... ipher.html

[_wenglund]

Fourth, we have the word of the principle in this case, that the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

Now, whether you believe this claim to be true or not, it is nevertheless significant in negating the KEP as an academic translation key.

If Joseph was able to translate by the gift and power of God, there would have been no need to use that power to construct a translation key to academically translate the Book of Abraham. He could just translate the Book of Abraham directly. As such, the KEP would not have been intended to translate the Egyptian papyri, let alone into the Book of Abraham. There must have been some other purpose for the KEP. See above.

And, if Joseph wasn't able to translate by the gift and power of God, and since he wasn't an Egyptologist, then he would not have been capable of creating a key to translate the Egyptian papyri. As such, the KEP would not have been intended to translate the Egyptian papyri, let alone into the Book of Abraham. There must have been some other purpose for the KEP. See above.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Critics, like Dan Vogel, somewhat agree with me, and assert instead something on the order that the KEP were but a prop, presumably to create the pious illusion that Joseph could translate the Egyptian papyri, which prop may add credibility to his claim to having tranlsated the Book of Abraham from the papyri.

However, this, too, falls flat for some of the same reasons listed above. Why would Phelps or Joseph create a prop using non-Egyptian, non-papyri characters and sound, so as to create the pious illusion of having translated Egyptian papyri? How, exactly, would such a pious illusion supposedly work? Would Joseph point to one of the non-Egyptian, non-papyri characters, sounds, and explanations, and then point to the papyri, so as to show where the characters and sounds don't appear, and this will somehow convince people that Joseph translated the papyri? I am sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Reason suggests that there must have been some other purpose for the papyri than to act as a prop.

Besides, the KEP were only known to have been shown once to non-participants in the KEP project. As such, it makes little sense to have undertaken such an elaborate project just to show them once to a couple of visitors, and this supposedly for the purpose of affecting a pious illusion. A far less elaborate prop, and one more suited to the purpose, would have suffice were that the intent. Thus, there must have been some other reasoning to better explain the KEP production. See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

By the way, did anyone happen to zoom in on the graphic of the number 4 in my first ciphered message to Kevin?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Are you trying to pull me into this argument, William? I don't want to fight about the KEP anymore. I have other interests and Crown Royal Black is one of them.

Well at least you're not doing illegal drugs Paul, that's something. It is actually interesting to see Will dishing out to you what you dished out to me for years regarding my own alcohol problems, and continued to do long after they had ceased.

You managed to answer my question with a question. I guess that means you're not a critical thinker on the same level as me. Could it be you dropped more acid than I did? Gee, I'd cut my blotter hits with a razor and make em last.

If you were sober on a more regular basis, Paul, you would probably have recognized by now that you've lost this argument in its entirety, as has Graham, Metcalfe, and others of similar bent.

[_Droopy]

Will is a glutton for punishment, that's for sure. He can't hold his own against anyone on this forum.

But...he is, which is well attested by juvenile posturings such as the above.

[_beastie]

First, did Will give any reference for his "Masonic ciphers", or are we left guessing what Masonic ciphers, exactly, he used as a source?

Beastie - Just for you your information I have spent the last couple of weeks examining Will's hypothesis that these characters were Masonic, and more importantly that Joseph Smith knew they were Masonic. Many of the characters on the Anthon transcript, specimen of the pure language, and the EA are indeed from a Masonic cipher known as the Royal Arch cipher. For this find Will should be commended. You are also correct that Joseph Smith would have thought that the Egyptians were Freemasons and thus the presence of Royal Arch cipher characters in the these documents would have been a foregone conclusion for Joseph Smith. As for the other conclusions that Will draws from the presence of the Royal Arch cipher in these documents, well, I find these highly problematic.

Would this legend have been known to Joseph Smith? YES
1. Joseph Smith's Uncles, father, and brother were Freemasons.
2. This Masonic legend was not sensitive Masonic information and thus was probably a topic of conversation around the dinner table.
3. This Masonic legend was repeatedly published in public newspapers.

The Escritoir, a Masonic newspaper available in Palmyra, made frequent references to the Egyptian-Masonic connection. For example the following quote from the Escritoir might be of interest to you.

When the Egyptian priests had, in this manner, procured admission into the Society of Freemasons, they connected the mythology of their country, and their metaphysical speculations concerning the nature of God, and the condition of men, with an association formed for the exclusive purpose of scientific improvement, and produced that combination of science and theology which, in after ages, formed such a conspicuous part of the principles of Freemasonry.

The knowledge of the Egyptians were carefully concealed from the vulgar; and when the priests did condescend to communicate it to the learned men of other nations, it was conferred in symbols and hieroglyphics, accompanied with particular rites and ceremonies, making the value of the gift they bestowed. (Escritoir, 1(15):113)

The Royal Arch cipher was readily available via exposes prior to the 1828 production of the Anthon transcript; and most Master Masons, despite this being a part of the higher degrees, were well aware of its existence and usage. Prior to either Brigham Young's or Joseph Smith's initiation into Freemasonry, Joseph had Brigham record one of his plural marriages in Royal Arch cipher. Mike Reed has a great writeup of this on his blog. The presence of characters from the Royal Arch cipher in the Anthon transcript before W. W. Phelps became a Mormon, the use of these characters by Brigham and Joseph to record sacred events, and the fact that W.W. Phelps published the anti-Masonic newspapers the Lake Light and Ontario Phoenix which Quinn says ridiculed the antiquity of Freemasonry, provide strong evidence that Joseph Smith was the primary instigator of their use and the belief that they were ancient.

Thank you SO much for that clear information. That is exactly what I have been hoping for.

I think George’s information settles the question entirely. Joseph Smith would, indeed, have been influenced by the idea that Masonry had its roots in ancient Egypt and, therefore, elements contained on the Masonic ciphers were likely also Egyptian (or perhaps reformed Egyptian) in origin as well.

[_beastie]

Good people,

In addition to the compelling arguments that have been made and are continuing to be made by Will and Daniel and others for the priority of portions of the Book of Abraham to that of the KEP, there are several other practical considerations that ought reasonably give serious pause in thinking that the KEP were intended to academically translate the Egyptian papyri, let alone into the Book of Abraham.

First, even if we charitable grant the implausible insinuation that Phelps or Joseph thought the KEP characters in question were Egyptian in language, we can't excape the fact that the characters in question are not on the Egyptian papyri. And, since one cannot use non-papyri characters to translate characters on the papyri, then reason suggests that there must have been some other explanation for the non-papyri characters than that they were intended to translate the papyri. There must have been some other purpose in mind for those characters.

I believe a reasonable case can be made that their purpose may have been to construct a "pure language" that had the dual function, like Kabbalah, of acting as a cipher (so as to preserve faith, protect the sacred from the profane, and to prevent over-budening and misuse of sacred knowledge) as well as an exegetical or hermeneutical tool for enlightening the undersanding of initiates.

First, Wade, it is not “charitable” to concede that Joseph Smith et al may have believed Masonic figures were Egyptian in origin: by this point, you have been forced to make this concession. I find it disappointing that Will apparently completely ignored this issue, unless he has addressed it elsewhere that I haven’t seen. I’m not even well educated on this topic, and yet I immediately recognized that as a potential flaw, so why didn’t Will? Did he not know about the Masonic/Egyptian connection, or did he know and choose to ignore it in his presentation? Either possibility is problematic.

I think that this is extremely problematic to a good portion of Will’s theory, if not devastating to it. He emphasized repeatedly that Joseph Smith used elements that were not Egyptian to build his entire case of a cipher instead of a translation tool. If, as has now been established, Joseph Smith thought Masonic figures were Egyptian in origin, that theory has been destroyed. We’re back at square one: a document that did, indeed, have something to do with translating Egyptian, as it claimed.

Now it’s possible that Will’s chronology is correct, and that the translation of the Book of Abraham preceded the KEP. However, that does not mean that the KEP were not intended to be a tool for translating Egyptian. It just means that perhaps Joseph Smith used it like a Rosetta stone – working backwards from what he had obtained via “revelation” to construct a tool to translate other Egyptian documents in the future.

Second, even if we grant the implausible insinuation that Phelps or Joseph thought the non-Egyptian sounds of the KEP were Egyptian, we can't excape the fact that the Egyptian papyri were written and not an audio recording. The KEP sounds, then, could not be used to translate the written characters on the papyri. As such, reasons suggests that there must have been some other purpose in mind for those sounds than translating the written papyri. Again, I believe a reasonable case can be made as explained above--a "pure language" that can be both written and oral..

Exactly why is this “implausible”? It’s already been established that these people were working with little education, even given the very little that was known about Egyptian by a very few experts at that time period. To suggest that they would have known the sounds were nonEgyptian is what is implausible and unfounded. Just where did they obtain this knowledge and training?

Third, given the more plausible scenerio that Phelps and Joseph DID know that the Non-Egyptian characters and sound were not Egyptian language, then one canNOT reasonably assume that the non-Egyptian characters and sounds were intended to be used to translate Egyptian characters on the papyri. There must have been some other purpose in mind for those non-Egyptian characters and sounds. See above.

-To be continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have yet to see you or anyone establish that it is plausible – in the least – that Joseph Smith et al would have known enough about Egyptian to be able to discern actual Egyptian. Keep in mind, this was the very early days of the Rosetta stone, so almost nothing was known about Egyptian, even by experts. You and Will just assert that it is so, as if your assertion should be adequate. It’s not.