KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Markk]

It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation)

Hi Will,

When and where did Joseph Smith receive the Book of Abraham revelation? Is this a teaching of the church?

Thanks

MG

[_William Schryver]

It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation)

Hi Will,

When and where did Joseph Smith receive the Book of Abraham revelation? Is this a teaching of the church?

Thanks

MG

I'll let John Whitmer answer this one:

About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written By Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.

John Whitmer, Book of John Whitmer, 7. (emphasis mine)

[_beastie]

Did or did not Nibley's theory entail positing that the Alphabet and Grammar were intended as a tool to decipher the papyri?

bumping up in hopes of a response

[_William Schryver]

Did or did not Nibley's theory entail positing that the Alphabet and Grammar were intended as a tool to decipher the papyri?

You tell me.

And then be sure to expound on why or if it matters (in respect to my theses for the meaning and purpose of the KEP).

But I have a ménage à trois* to attend to right now, so I probably won't be back around to see your response until sometime tomorrow.





* = Me, Señorita Ibanez, and Fräulein Fender.

[_beastie]

Did or did not Nibley's theory entail positing that the Alphabet and Grammar were intended as a tool to decipher the papyri?

You tell me.

And then be sure to expound on why or if it matters (in respect to my theses for the meaning and purpose of the KEP).

I've already made it clear that I do not think this is what Nibley's theory entails. But in the section of your presentation in which you claimed to be demonstrating why Nibley's theory has to be rejected, this is what you ended with:

”There are many references in the Alphabet and Grammar to others of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations. If the Alphabet and Grammar is partially dependent on texts that have no relationship to Egyptian papyri, then it cannot have been intended as a tool to decipher the papyri.”

See, I'm still trying to figure out what the "far more definitive" reason there is for rejecting Nibley's theory. Wade still hasn't figured it out, either, from what I can tell. But it does seem that you engaged in a bit of sleight of hand here.

[_Markk]

Hi Will,

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation) that the need for encipherment arose.

Then you wrote:

After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written By Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.

This quote does not say that Joseph Smith "already" received the Book of Abraham by revelation, you underlined only part of the cf. It says 1st...he could (present tense), 2nd...when all translated (future tense).

JW is saying that Joseph as seer could by revelation translate the documents, and in the future will translate them, and when completed (all) they would be "of great value to the saints."

So I guess my question still stands, and...how did Joseph "already" receive a "English translation of the Book of Abraham" by John W's above statement, and given there are accounts by Joseph Smith that he was still working on the translation?


Thanks

MG

[_William Schryver]

I've already made it clear that I do not think this is what Nibley's theory entails. But in the section of your presentation in which you claimed to be demonstrating why Nibley's theory has to be rejected, this is what you ended with:

”There are many references in the Alphabet and Grammar to others of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations. If the Alphabet and Grammar is partially dependent on texts that have no relationship to Egyptian papyri, then it cannot have been intended as a tool to decipher the papyri.”

See, I'm still trying to figure out what the "far more definitive" reason there is for rejecting Nibley's theory. Wade still hasn't figured it out, either, from what I can tell. But it does seem that you engaged in a bit of sleight of hand here.

beastlie,

Nibley did not believe the A&G was used to translate the Book of Abraham. My comments you cite above are not made in reference to Nibley, but to Richard Howard and Edward Ashment. In Ashment's long-celebrated article Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, he echoes Howard's earlier claims about the role of the A&G as the modus operandi by which the Book of Abraham was produced:

Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation," they indeed were and indicate the "modus operandi" for Smith's "translation" of at least the first two chapters and eighteen verses of the Book of Abraham.

Ashment, Edward H., Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study © 1990 by Signature Books, Inc. Used by permission of author. Taken from Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 221-35.

[_Markk]

Hi Will,

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

It is precisely because Joseph Smith had already received the English translation of the Book of Abraham (by revelation) that the need for encipherment arose.

Then you wrote:

After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written By Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.

This quote does not say that Joseph Smith "already" received the Book of Abraham by revelation, you underlined only part of the cf. It says 1st...he could (present tense), 2nd...when all translated (future tense).

JW is saying that Joseph as seer could by revelation translate the documents, and in the future will translate them, and when completed (all) they would be "of great value to the saints."

So I guess my question still stands, and...how did Joseph "already" receive a "English translation of the Book of Abraham" by John W's above statement, and given there are accounts by Joseph Smith that he was still working on the translation?


Thanks

MG

2nd request

[_beastie]

beastlie,

Nibley did not believe the A&G was used to translate the Book of Abraham. My comments you cite above are not made in reference to Nibley, but to Richard Howard and Edward Ashment. In Ashment's long-celebrated article Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, he echoes Howard's earlier claims about the role of the A&G as the modus operandi by which the Book of Abraham was produced:

Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation," they indeed were and indicate the "modus operandi" for Smith's "translation" of at least the first two chapters and eighteen verses of the Book of Abraham.

Ashment, Edward H., Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study © 1990 by Signature Books, Inc. Used by permission of author. Taken from Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 221-35.

I see. So that entire section was a build-up to dismissing Ashment/Howard, and not Nibley, despite the misleading intro.

So what is the "far more definitive" reason to reject Nibley?

[_Paul Osborne]

I'll let John Whitmer answer this one:

About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written By Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.

John Whitmer, Book of John Whitmer, 7. (emphasis mine]

So, in the year 1835 there was nobody other than the prophet Joseph Smith that could translate Egyptian records into English? And thus we see not many years later he would translate a portion of the Facsimile No. 3 and present it to the world in the Times & Seasons as a revelation from God and a gift from the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wow.

And we see how in 1835 Joseph Smith saw the records (papyrus) which contained lost stories from the Bible -- namely: The Book of Abraham & The Book of Joseph, the latter having never been translated at all. Note that according to the statement the seer is attributed with the ability to translate and not that he already translated. If you want to take the statement to say that Joseph already translated the Book of Abraham then you must also say that he translated the Book of Joseph.

Paul O