Mike, why were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young using cyphers anyway, whether they be Royal Arch, Golden Arch or Quabalistic?

Fascinating post,

so as I understand it, BY used a variant of a mason cypher to record JSjr's extramartial relationships.

interesting...

This is good work, Mike!

Interesting post Mike! Have you seen the analysis of the Anthon "caractors" over at the Cipher Mysteries Blog? It's pretty good as well:

Cipher Mysteries - That Anthon Transcript

In this case, to keep polygamy on the down-low. The reason why I brought up the cipher, however, was to substantiate my argument that (contrary to the claims of some LDS apologists) Mormons had access to Royal Arch secrets before the Nauvoo endowment was given to the Saints.

Questions:

Does it seem like MormonMason is throwing up a smokescreen (ie. throwing out irrelevant details/red-herrings in order to cloud the issue and cover up my counter-evidence)? It sure seems like it to me.

MormonMason is Greg Kearney, right?

Edit to add: I just realized that MormonMason isn't Greg.

Can apologists actually do such a thing, with smoking being against the WoW and all that?

Greg knows so much about Masonry that adding extraneous details which interfere with your point may be unintentional. Todos es posible.

I don't know...

MormonMason *twice* implied that the subject matter of Brigham Young's encrypted text has some bearing upon whether or not he used a Royal Arch cipher.

He wrote: "Something else that you might find of interest is that this journal entry raises more questions that it answers. 'Taken into the Lodge' does not refer to Freemasonry and this cipher would not pertain to the Fraternity, therefore. Brigham Young was initiated into the Fraternity on April 2, 1842, not in January."

I called him on this, asking him to explain his point. He didn't answer, but instead repeated the same implication, saying, "consider also that the entire Young ciphered journal entry was written as though the entire thing was a string of abbreviations and that W.A.S. in other manuscripts in the LDS archives I have read actually mean 'Washed, Anointed and Sealed' rather than 'Wedded and Sealed.' But, as I said, this entry raises more questions than it answers."

Sigh...

He also said, "I have some images you might find of interest, including a 3rd Degree Tracing Board from 1820 that contains characters from a Royal Arch cipher, and some additional examples of ciphers."

Now... unless the "additional examples of ciphers" are not Royal Arch, and unless one of those ciphers can be used to accurately translate Brigham Young's journal entry, then this is just another red herring. 20 bucks says that the MormonMason doesn't have a non-Royal Arch cipher that can be used to translate Brigham Young's entry. Anyone want to wager?

Who is Greg Kearney?

He is a FAIR apologist who is both a Mormon and Mason. I wasn't sure if he was MormonMason. Just checked the MADb forum and found out that Greg actually posts under gkearney, not MormonMason (glad to see that). So I guess I don't know who MormonMason is. Maybe D. Charles Pyle? Anyone know?

Does the Masonic tie-in take on more credibility when one sees NO Temple Ordinances being performed in the Kirtland Temple? Joseph was not a Mason yet, was he? Public dances, meetings and the like but no Temple Ceremony. No nothing as is known today.

Temple ordinances in Nauvoo, a lot like Masonic ceremonies. Joseph was now a Mason.

Do I have the time line correct on this?