Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_Darth J]

maklelan---

Just a quick layperson's question, and a quick and dirty answer for a layperson would be just fine.

You said to Kevin, "You seem to have missed where I stated that there is evidence in some places for dictation and in others for transcription. If a "copy theorist" is one that needs to explain away evidence for dictation then I'm not a copy theorist."

I understand you're still working on a conclusion, but in general, what would textual criticism tell you when there is evidence of dictation as well as evidence for copying? Would it mean that there is a previous document being copied, and they're also using the same paper on which they're copying to write down new dictation? In other words, it would be something like:

A: here's this part where I'm copying a previous document

B: now I've stopped copying and am writing a new thing that's being dictated to me

A: now I've stopped taking dictation and I'm back to copying the previous document

I'm not saying this A-B-A is indicative of what you're looking at; just as an example.

Or, would the evidence of some copying and some dictation suggest that there's a previous document, and in the process of copying, the scribes are being dictated new information that amends or supplements the previous document, so what you're looking at is actually one whole thing, a "C" that isn't copy-and-stop, dictate-and-stop, start-copying again, but a synthesis of the dictation and the previous document. So something like:

C: I'm writing about Bob Jones, and I copy his address and phone number out of the phone book, and while I'm copying that down I get dictation about Bob's kids and what his house looks like, so I integrate that with what I'm copying.

Does this question make sense (I hope)? Or would some copying and some dictation suggest something other than what I'm inferring?

Thanks.

[_sock puppet]

maklelan---

Just a quick layperson's question, and a quick and dirty answer for a layperson would be just fine.

You said to Kevin, "You seem to have missed where I stated that there is evidence in some places for dictation and in others for transcription. If a "copy theorist" is one that needs to explain away evidence for dictation then I'm not a copy theorist."

I understand you're still working on a conclusion, but in general, what would textual criticism tell you when there is evidence of dictation as well as evidence for copying? Would it mean that there is a previous document being copied, and they're also using the same paper on which they're copying to write down new dictation? In other words, it would be something like:

A: here's this part where I'm copying a previous document

B: now I've stopped copying and am writing a new thing that's being dictated to me

A: now I've stopped taking dictation and I'm back to copying the previous document

I'm not saying this A-B-A is indicative of what you're looking at; just as an example.

Or, would the evidence of some copying and some dictation suggest that there's a previous document, and in the process of copying, the scribes are being dictated new information that amends or supplements the previous document, so what you're looking at is actually one whole thing, a "C" that isn't copy-and-stop, dictate-and-stop, start-copying again, but a synthesis of the dictation and the previous document. So something like:

C: I'm writing about Bob Jones, and I copy his address and phone number out of the phone book, and while I'm copying that down I get dictation about Bob's kids and what his house looks like, so I integrate that with what I'm copying.

Does this question make sense (I hope)? Or would some copying and some dictation suggest something other than what I'm inferring?

Thanks.

Darth J spots another false dichotomy in the KEP debates. Maybe the Abr Mss. were partly dictated and partly copied from another source (such as, I will add, a partly completed EA/EG). It doesn't have to be that the Abr Mss. were entirely a dictation transcript or entirely a copy taken from a preexisting manuscript. And Darth J apparently has the backing of maklelan on this one.

[_sock puppet]

Again, your assessment of the situation (as well as your general understanding of the nature of the faith of the Saints) is distorted by your own prejudices and blindspots. That my discoveries have almost immediately found a broad, receptive, and understanding audience, both among the rank and file as well as the leadership of the church, is an observable fact. At the same time, no one, least of all me, is surprised at the reaction from the contingent of apostate critics. Two-dimensional thinking is notoriously predictable.

William, I know you're talking to beastie, but I'd like to clarify what you're saying here. Please set aside for the moment all the theories about what the KEP are.

I was taught all during my education of church history that Joseph Smith "translated" text from gold plates into the Book of Mormon, and "translated" text from an Egyptian papyrus into the Book of Abraham. From my admittedly apostate perspective, it was my understanding that all believing Mormons were taught this, and that we all believed "translated" means roughly characters/heiroglyphs/<insert techincal term for language symbols here> were converted into English words and phrases through the gift of revelation from God. Are you saying that my understanding of these teachings was different from everyone else's? Are you further saying that this plain interpretation of the meaning of "translation" is no more faith-affirming than learning the real methods Joseph Smith used, i.e. rock-and-face-in-hat-dictation sometimes without the ostensible source material even in the room?

We know about how Joseph Smith delivered God's command after the Book of Mormon, and that he didn't need to find the word of God written somewhere. If your theory is right, then why bother with the gold plates and papyrus? He already had the stone for scrying, so aren't they just props?

Think back to whenever you were first introduced by Mormons to Joseph Smith, the historical figure. What details did they provide in explaining to you how he produced the Book of Mormon? How much time passed before you learned about what you say is a faith-promoting version of the process? If it's really that faith-promoting, why hasn't that been the original explanation from the beginning? I dunno, man. It seems to me like the plain meaning of "translation" has been turned on its head. Even if your theory is correct, do you really not see the elephant in this room? What's the third dimension we apostates are missing?

Plain and simple truths. Not among the world of Mormon apologia, Euthyphro.

The Painesville Republican, Vol 2, No. 14, 15 (2/15/1838 and 2/22/1838) printed a 2/5/1838 letter from Warren Parrish of Kirtland, Ohio, scribe to Joseph Smith after around the second week of November 1835 (per Will's post here http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=350647#p350647)

I have set [sic] by his [Joseph Smith's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.

• Side by side they sat, Joseph Smith and Warren Parrish, as Parrish penned the translation
• Side by side with Joseph Smith, and yet Warren Parrish thought they were penning translation of hieroglyphics rather than hieratics
• Side by side with Joseph Smith as these translations were received directly from Heaven

I note that because of the Kirtland Safety Society's failure in 1837, before 2/5/1838 (the date of the letter) Parrish had become disaffected from the Joseph Smith and Mormon body and Joseph Smith had already fled to Missouri. Apart from the word "claimed" being in the quoted passage as from where Joseph Smith claimed how he was translating (directly from Heaven), however, there is not a negative connotation for Joseph Smith, just Parrish simply describing the process of translating the Egyptian characters.

[_Darth J]

The Painesville Republican, Vol 2, No. 14, 15 (2/15/1838 and 2/22/1838) printed a 2/5/1838 letter from Warren Parrish of Kirtland, Ohio, scribe to Joseph Smith after around the second week of November 1835 (per Will's post here http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=350647#p350647)

I have set [sic] by his [Joseph Smith's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.

• Side by side they sat, Joseph Smith and Warren Parrish, as Parrish penned the translation
• Side by side with Joseph Smith, and yet Warren Parrish thought they were penning translation of hieroglyphics rather than hieratics
• Side by side with Joseph Smith as these translations were received directly from Heaven

I note that because of the Kirtland Safety Society's failure in 1837, before 2/5/1838 (the date of the letter) Parrish had become disaffected from the Joseph Smith and Mormon body and Joseph Smith had already fled to Missouri. Apart from the word "claimed" being in the quoted passage as from where Joseph Smith claimed how he was translating (directly from Heaven), however, there is not a negative connotation for Joseph Smith, just Parrish simply describing the process of translating the Egyptian characters.

How do we know that the "missing Q-source," if there is one, isn't the dictation from the Prophet's lips that Parrish is talking about, and that the KEP "dictation manuscripts" aren't something else?

And if the "missing Q-source" is actually the original dictation manuscript, how are we not right back to the same place with Joseph Smith claiming to have been translating what was written on the papyri?

EDIT: "How do we know it isn't?" meaning "Why should we assume it is anything other than?"

[_maklelan]

maklelan---

Just a quick layperson's question, and a quick and dirty answer for a layperson would be just fine.

You said to Kevin, "You seem to have missed where I stated that there is evidence in some places for dictation and in others for transcription. If a "copy theorist" is one that needs to explain away evidence for dictation then I'm not a copy theorist."

I understand you're still working on a conclusion, but in general, what would textual criticism tell you when there is evidence of dictation as well as evidence for copying?

That portions were dictated and portions were copied.

Would it mean that there is a previous document being copied, and they're also using the same paper on which they're copying to write down new dictation? In other words, it would be something like:

A: here's this part where I'm copying a previous document

B: now I've stopped copying and am writing a new thing that's being dictated to me

A: now I've stopped taking dictation and I'm back to copying the previous document

I'm not saying this A-B-A is indicative of what you're looking at; just as an example.

Or, would the evidence of some copying and some dictation suggest that there's a previous document, and in the process of copying, the scribes are being dictated new information that amends or supplements the previous document, so what you're looking at is actually one whole thing, a "C" that isn't copy-and-stop, dictate-and-stop, start-copying again, but a synthesis of the dictation and the previous document. So something like:

C: I'm writing about Bob Jones, and I copy his address and phone number out of the phone book, and while I'm copying that down I get dictation about Bob's kids and what his house looks like, so I integrate that with what I'm copying.

Does this question make sense (I hope)? Or would some copying and some dictation suggest something other than what I'm inferring?

Thanks.

It makes sense, but in the example of the homoioteleuton with the word Haran, dictation is unlikely, especially considering the lack of the Egyptian character in the margin with the repeated text. Smith could have very easily dictated a portion and then handed the text over to the scribe and said, "I gotta run. Keep going with this," or any number of other similar scenarios. Your conclusion is more complicated than the notion that the text was alternatively transcribed and dictated. The law of parsimony favors my theory, which means we need a reason to reject my theory in order to favor yours. The only reason I can imagine is a simple desire to reject the notion of transcription.

[_maklelan]

Plain and simple truths. Not among the world of Mormon apologia, Euthyphro.

The Painesville Republican, Vol 2, No. 14, 15 (2/15/1838 and 2/22/1838) printed a 2/5/1838 letter from Warren Parrish of Kirtland, Ohio, scribe to Joseph Smith after around the second week of November 1835 (per Will's post here http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=350647#p350647)

I have set [sic] by his [Joseph Smith's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.

So he was relying on direct revelation to translate the characters rather than using the EAG?

[_sock puppet]

Plain and simple truths. Not among the world of Mormon apologia, Euthyphro.

The Painesville Republican, Vol 2, No. 14, 15 (2/15/1838 and 2/22/1838) printed a 2/5/1838 letter from Warren Parrish of Kirtland, Ohio, scribe to Joseph Smith after around the second week of November 1835 (per Will's post here http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=350647#p350647)

I have set [sic] by his [Joseph Smith's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.

So he was relying on direct revelation to translate the characters rather than using the EAG?

Yes, as to at least portions if not all that Warren Parrish was handling--and after we know from Joseph Smith's diary entries that work was already under way on the KEP, since late July 1835. Parrish wasn't hired until mid-November 1835. And we know from the 10/1/1835 diary entry that as laboring on the EA, the System of astronomy unfolded to them, but Abr 3 was not translated until 1842.

[_sock puppet]

Plain and simple truths. Not among the world of Mormon apologia, Euthyphro.

The Painesville Republican, Vol 2, No. 14, 15 (2/15/1838 and 2/22/1838) printed a 2/5/1838 letter from Warren Parrish of Kirtland, Ohio, scribe to Joseph Smith after around the second week of November 1835 (per Will's post here http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=350647#p350647)

I have set [sic] by his [Joseph Smith's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.

So he was relying on direct revelation to translate the characters rather than using the EAG?

And we also know that it was character-based translation, not revelation disconnected from an ancient writing.

[_Darth J]

It makes sense, but in the example of the homoioteleuton with the word Haran, dictation is unlikely, especially considering the lack of the Egyptian character in the margin with the repeated text. Smith could have very easily dictated a portion and then handed the text over to the scribe and said, "I gotta run. Keep going with this," or any number of other similar scenarios. Your conclusion is more complicated than the notion that the text was alternatively transcribed and dictated. The law of parsimony favors my theory, which means we need a reason to reject my theory in order to favor yours. The only reason I can imagine is a simple desire to reject the notion of transcription.

I don't have a theory; I only have questions about other people's theories. I haven't decided which one is the most persuasive. My example was just to explain my question to you, not to posit what I think happened.

So, is your working theory right now that Joseph Smith may have been reading something aloud, which the scribes were writing down (this of course would be the dictation part), and then for whatever reason gives them the document he's reading from to continue writing it down (this would be the copying part)? Am I understanding this correctly?

[_maklelan]

So he was relying on direct revelation to translate the characters rather than using the EAG?

Is that a yes on my question? Also, Smith's claim to have translated the Egyptian hieroglyphs by inspiration is in no way in conflict with the catalyst theory (which does not hold that he didn't look at it or that anyone, including him, understood exactly what was taking place).