KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _sock puppet »

dblagent007 wrote:
sock puppet wrote:Will, if you do not believe that Joseph Smith ever translated an ancient record in a linguistic manner into English, why do you believe the actual Abraham scroll is missing? What would be God's purpose in protecting the Abrahamic scroll for centuries, no for millennia, and seeing it make its way into Joseph Smith's hands if the mechanics of the inspiration do not include Smith linguistically translating the characters/letters of the ancient record into English? That is, if God's doing all the work anyway, why did Joseph Smith need to have the artifact of the ancient writing in his possession? If the production of the BoAbr was detached from the ancient papyri, then what use was the papyri?

That was how the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph didn't even use the gold plates.

Yes, but that simply begs the broader question, why then either the gold plates or the Egyptian papyri?

Do the defenders really think that God would need, after having appeared floating in the air and speaking to Joseph Smith, a prop for Joseph Smith to give it any credence? If God appeared to me like that, anything he tells me in English words appearing above a rock, I'd believe without needing either some gold plates or Egyptian papyri in front of me.
_dblagent007
_Emeritus
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _dblagent007 »

sock puppet wrote:
dblagent007 wrote:That was how the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph didn't even use the gold plates.

Yes, but that simply begs the broader question, why then either the gold plates or the Egyptian papyri?

I know what you mean. I don't know what the current apologetic explanation is for this. Probably something about how it helped bolster Joseph's confidence in his abilities as a prophet (isn't that the explanation for Joseph being the village seer stone operator in his early days?).
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Edward Ashment was kind enough to send me a list of his works, published and unpublished:

Publications

2001. ‘Abraham’ in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS 1).

<http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp>

1994. “The Temple: Historical Origins and Religious Value.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall): 289-298.

1993. “‘A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon.” In New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1993. The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham. Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, Inc.

1992. “Historiography of the Canon.” In Faithful History, edited by George D. Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham As a Case Study.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands’.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1982. Review of The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, by Kirk H. Vestal and Arthur Wallace. The SunStone Review 2, no. 2: 24.

1980. “The Book of Mormon and the Anthon Transcript: An Interim Report.” SunStone 5, no. 3 (May-June): 29-31.

1980. “The Book of Mormon—A Literal Translation?” SunStone 5, no. 2 (Mar-Apr): 10-14.

1979. “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal.” SunStone 4, nos. 5-6 (Dec): 33-48.

1978. Review of The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. Marvin W. Meyer. SunStone 3, no. 4 (May-June): 30.



Unpublished Papers

1990. “Aspects of Hugh Nibley’s ‘Methodological Philosophy’.” SunStone West Theological Symposium. Pasadena, California.

1989. A Response to “Ancient Sources of Masonic Ritual,” by David Ellis. SunStone West Theological Symposium. Concord, California.

1984. A Response to “Restoring Plain and Precious Truths: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Synoptic Gospels,” by Robert L. Millet. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo, Utah.

1984. A Response to “Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham,” by H. Donl Peterson. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo: Utah.

1983. “The Fundamentalist Challenge of Religious Authority.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.

1980. “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _Kishkumen »

I guess Will has this guy beat when it comes to his publication record.

Will: 1
Ed: 0*

The apologists win again!

*Edit: to reach this calculation, you must subtract all of the publications of Ed Ashment that were not published with FARMS and go forward in time to the publication of Will's JBMORS article. It's a miracle! Just like the missing papyrus!
Last edited by Guest on Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_ED Ashment
_Emeritus
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _ED Ashment »

Hi.

Yes, indeed, I’m still alive. (It seems odd to be writing that.)

No, I never finished my dissertation: a fascinating and massive study of the NK netherworld books. (Time ran out, and I had a family to support and raise.) Believe it or not, I still work on it. Labor ipse voluptas.

If ‘maintaining membership’ means ‘active’, then the answer is no. I have undergone six ‘worthiness’ interviews because of my writings; so there are those who have tried to ‘resign’ me from the church.

I don’t know Mr. Schryver. It would be useful to see the bibliography of his publications that have ‘demonstrated that virtually everything’ of what little I wrote about the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers ‘was incorrect’.

I haven’t retired. Rather, I’ve moved on. (See my Précis here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/precis.shtml) Years of experience have taught me that there can be little or no dialogue between ‘proclaimers of Truth’ (religious and secular ideologues) and ‘discoverers of truth’ (empiricists). The former tend to debate; the latter tend to discuss.

Daniel Patte’s observation is apropos in this context:

'For instance, the fundamentalist interpreter as exegete affirms, against the historian, the historicity of the virgin birth and of the empty tomb. Why? Because he abides by the modern historical conviction which can be summarized in the phrase: if it is historical it is true, even more than does the historian! For this fundamentalist exegete, truth and historicity are so much identified with each other that he is led to conclude: if it is true (according to my faith), it is historical. Jesus' resurrection is a cornerstone of his faith. Consequently the empty tomb must be a historical fact. This obscurantist attitude which intended to provide a biblical interpretation free from modern culture ends by being bound to that culture. It is now assumed that the modern historical conviction belonged instrinsically to the biblical faith! The obscurantist attitude can be termed "historicism" since it absolutizes the modern historical conviction in its very attempt to dismiss it. When combined with a conviction about the literal inspiration of the Bible, such historicism leads, nevertheless, to a hermeneutic which is accepted as meaningful by a sizable section of our society.' (Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Series [Fortress Press, 1979], 7.)

In other words, apologists are committed to a Truth that must be defended as historical, which leads them to make arguments, some of which can be hysterical.

Mr. Schryver will have to find someone else with whom to ‘publicly debate’. For, not only do I not have a dog in this hunt, I discuss.

Re: ‘Perhaps Ashment is not suffering from andropause to the same degree as that guy in Washington’. I see that not everyone has learned civility.

Some have wondered what I’ve published or written. Here is a fairly complete list:

PUBLICATIONS

2001. ‘Abraham’ in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS 1).
<http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp>

1994. “The Temple: Historical Origins and Religious Value.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall): 289-298.

1993. “‘A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon.” In New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1993. The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham. Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, Inc.

1992. “Historiography of the Canon.” In Faithful History, edited by George D. Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham As a Case Study.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands’.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1982. Review of The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, by Kirk H. Vestal and Arthur Wallace. The SunStone Review 2, no. 2: 24.

1980. “The Book of Mormon and the Anthon Transcript: An Interim Report.” SunStone 5, no. 3 (May-June): 29-31.

1980. “The Book of Mormon—A Literal Translation?” SunStone 5, no. 2 (Mar-Apr): 10-14.

1979. “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal.” SunStone 4, nos. 5-6 (Dec): 33-48.

1978. Review of The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. Marvin W. Meyer. SunStone 3, no. 4 (May-June): 30.


UNPUBLISHED PAPERS

1990. “Aspects of Hugh Nibley’s ‘Methodological Philosophy’.” SunStone West Theological Symposium. Pasadena, California.

1989. A Response to “Ancient Sources of Masonic Ritual,” by David Ellis. SunStone West Theological Symposium. Concord, California.

1984. A Response to “Restoring Plain and Precious Truths: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Synoptic Gospels,” by Robert L. Millet. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo, Utah.

1984. A Response to “Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham,” by H. Donl Peterson. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo: Utah.

1983. “The Fundamentalist Challenge of Religious Authority.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.

1980. “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.

I hope this has been helpful. If you wish to communicate with me, you may do so through Kevin Graham.

Ed.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _Kishkumen »

ED Ashment wrote:'For instance, the fundamentalist interpreter as exegete affirms, against the historian, the historicity of the virgin birth and of the empty tomb. Why? Because he abides by the modern historical conviction which can be summarized in the phrase: if it is historical it is true, even more than does the historian! For this fundamentalist exegete, truth and historicity are so much identified with each other that he is led to conclude: if it is true (according to my faith), it is historical. Jesus' resurrection is a cornerstone of his faith. Consequently the empty tomb must be a historical fact. This obscurantist attitude which intended to provide a biblical interpretation free from modern culture ends by being bound to that culture. It is now assumed that the modern historical conviction belonged instrinsically to the biblical faith! The obscurantist attitude can be termed "historicism" since it absolutizes the modern historical conviction in its very attempt to dismiss it. When combined with a conviction about the literal inspiration of the Bible, such historicism leads, nevertheless, to a hermeneutic which is accepted as meaningful by a sizable section of our society.' (Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Series [Fortress Press, 1979], 7.)


Thank you for a very useful quote.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Ray A

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _Ray A »

ED Ashment wrote: Years of experience have taught me that there can be little or no dialogue between ‘proclaimers of Truth’ (religious and secular ideologues) and ‘discoverers of truth’ (empiricists). The former tend to debate; the latter tend to discuss.


Unless the proclaimers wake up and realise they need to discover. That seldom happens. The debates on this thread are nevertheless sometimes entertaining, particularly when Kevin goes into top gear. Gee, I wish I had that kind of conviction. Watching Kevin and Will go head to head reminds me why I can't be bothered with TV.


Daniel Patte wrote:'For instance, the fundamentalist interpreter as exegete affirms, against the historian, the historicity of the virgin birth and of the empty tomb. Why? Because he abides by the modern historical conviction which can be summarized in the phrase: if it is historical it is true, even more than does the historian! For this fundamentalist exegete, truth and historicity are so much identified with each other that he is led to conclude: if it is true (according to my faith), it is historical....The obscurantist attitude can be termed "historicism" since it absolutizes the modern historical conviction in its very attempt to dismiss it. When combined with a conviction about the literal inspiration of the Bible, such historicism leads, nevertheless, to a hermeneutic which is accepted as meaningful by a sizable section of our society.'


Even a few Mormon scholars would agree with this, but the majority of them now live with the reputation of Korihor, "academic untouchables".
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

I just posted over at MADB some of the reasons I am not persuaded by the hypothesis that Joseph and/or Phelps may have thought of "pure language" and "Egyptian language" as something to be constructed rather than restored. Those who are interested can view the post here.
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _William Schryver »

ED Ashment wrote:Hi.

Yes, indeed, I’m still alive. (It seems odd to be writing that.)

No, I never finished my dissertation: a fascinating and massive study of the NK netherworld books. (Time ran out, and I had a family to support and raise.) Believe it or not, I still work on it. Labor ipse voluptas.

If ‘maintaining membership’ means ‘active’, then the answer is no. I have undergone six ‘worthiness’ interviews because of my writings; so there are those who have tried to ‘resign’ me from the church.

I don’t know Mr. Schryver. It would be useful to see the bibliography of his publications that have ‘demonstrated that virtually everything’ of what little I wrote about the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers ‘was incorrect’.

I haven’t retired. Rather, I’ve moved on. (See my Précis here: http://www.lds-Mormon.com/precis.shtml) Years of experience have taught me that there can be little or no dialogue between ‘proclaimers of Truth’ (religious and secular ideologues) and ‘discoverers of truth’ (empiricists). The former tend to debate; the latter tend to discuss.

Daniel Patte’s observation is apropos in this context:

'For instance, the fundamentalist interpreter as exegete affirms, against the historian, the historicity of the virgin birth and of the empty tomb. Why? Because he abides by the modern historical conviction which can be summarized in the phrase: if it is historical it is true, even more than does the historian! For this fundamentalist exegete, truth and historicity are so much identified with each other that he is led to conclude: if it is true (according to my faith), it is historical. Jesus' resurrection is a cornerstone of his faith. Consequently the empty tomb must be a historical fact. This obscurantist attitude which intended to provide a biblical interpretation free from modern culture ends by being bound to that culture. It is now assumed that the modern historical conviction belonged instrinsically to the biblical faith! The obscurantist attitude can be termed "historicism" since it absolutizes the modern historical conviction in its very attempt to dismiss it. When combined with a conviction about the literal inspiration of the Bible, such historicism leads, nevertheless, to a hermeneutic which is accepted as meaningful by a sizable section of our society.' (Daniel Patte, What Is Structural Exegesis?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Series [Fortress Press, 1979], 7.)

In other words, apologists are committed to a Truth that must be defended as historical, which leads them to make arguments, some of which can be hysterical.

Mr. Schryver will have to find someone else with whom to ‘publicly debate’. For, not only do I not have a dog in this hunt, I discuss.

Re: ‘Perhaps Ashment is not suffering from andropause to the same degree as that guy in Washington’. I see that not everyone has learned civility.

Some have wondered what I’ve published or written. Here is a fairly complete list:

PUBLICATIONS

2001. ‘Abraham’ in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS 1).
<http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp>

1994. “The Temple: Historical Origins and Religious Value.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27, no. 3 (Fall): 289-298.

1993. “‘A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon.” In New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1993. The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham. Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, Inc.

1992. “Historiography of the Canon.” In Faithful History, edited by George D. Smith. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham As a Case Study.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1990. “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands’.” In The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

1982. Review of The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, by Kirk H. Vestal and Arthur Wallace. The SunStone Review 2, no. 2: 24.

1980. “The Book of Mormon and the Anthon Transcript: An Interim Report.” SunStone 5, no. 3 (May-June): 29-31.

1980. “The Book of Mormon—A Literal Translation?” SunStone 5, no. 2 (Mar-Apr): 10-14.

1979. “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal.” SunStone 4, nos. 5-6 (Dec): 33-48.

1978. Review of The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. Marvin W. Meyer. SunStone 3, no. 4 (May-June): 30.


UNPUBLISHED PAPERS

1990. “Aspects of Hugh Nibley’s ‘Methodological Philosophy’.” SunStone West Theological Symposium. Pasadena, California.

1989. A Response to “Ancient Sources of Masonic Ritual,” by David Ellis. SunStone West Theological Symposium. Concord, California.

1984. A Response to “Restoring Plain and Precious Truths: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible and the Synoptic Gospels,” by Robert L. Millet. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo, Utah.

1984. A Response to “Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham,” by H. Donl Peterson. Mormon History Association Annual Meeting. Provo: Utah.

1983. “The Fundamentalist Challenge of Religious Authority.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.

1980. “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers.” SunStone Theological Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.

I hope this has been helpful. If you wish to communicate with me, you may do so through Kevin Graham.

Ed.

Ed,

Thanks for confirming that I have indeed read everything you have written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

I stand by my previous claim concerning the incorrectness of the propositions you have defended vis-a-vis that subject matter. (And, as I already knew, you have actually produced next to nothing when it comes to that subject matter. But then, you're not alone. Until just recently, no one has published much of anything regarding the KEP.)

I have no opinion at present concerning your views on issues concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri, with the exception of the bird wing/hand argument you have made, which is also incorrect.

-WS
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Thanks for confirming that I have indeed read everything you have written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

This is so typical of Will and Wade. When proved wrong, they shoot back and pretend they were right all along. He asked for his list of publications relative to the KEP, thinking there were none. This was the whole point behind his demand that I provide and calling me "ignorant" for thinking Ed had published anything on the matter. (since "anything" would prove he had published more than Will). Now that he has been handed a plate of crow, Will says, "Oh yeah I knew about those!"
I stand by my previous claim concerning the incorrectness of the propositions you have defended vis-à-vis that subject matter.

Which means nothing, since all you do is assert your alleged superiority. We've seen how that has gotten you in trouble recently when Hauglid refused to stand by your bombastic certitude. You can't argue your points, nor will you. You will only assert them in lecture format, and then retreat to the hall corners afterwards, while critics are pointing out the holes in them. Then you'll spend thousands of words and dozens of hours typing on the internet, explaining on the forums why you don't have time nor inclination to respond to those making mincemeat of your ludicrous arguments.
And, as I already knew, you have actually produced next to nothing when it comes to that subject matter.

Ed has probably published more than anyone else on the subject. If not him, then who? Nibley has what, one or two official publications and they were both apologetic in nature. Hauglid's upcoming volume will be essentially the first book covering the subject from an LDS standpoint, and it is basically just an introduction to get people familiar with it, containing very little by way of text-critical arguments.
But then, you're not alone. Until just recently, no one has published much of anything regarding the KEP.

Including you, right Will? You keep avoiding the fact that while you're smack talking others for having few publications, you yourself have none!
I have no opinion at present concerning your views on issues concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri, with the exception of the bird wing/hand argument you have made, which is also incorrect.

I suspect Ed is in a better position to comment on this than you are, and from what I understand, he has virtually every expert at the University of Chicago (and a few from Brown University) in his corner on this. But who needs world reknown scholars when we've got dilettantes like Kerry Shirts and Will Schryver manfacturing these "game changers" for the sake of saving souls?
Post Reply