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."
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?