DiscussMormonism.com

Brian Hauglid, in his infamous FAIR presentation on the KEPA, points out that critics assume that the KEPA are "translation working papers," and he, presenting a contrary view, asserts that they are not. So, what are they, if not evidence of the translation process?

Don Bradley: The title of Hauglid's paper was so interesting. I couldn't wait to hear what he had to say. Does anyone know what sort of thesis he was going to be arguing?

Dan Vogel: Undoubtedly a little backpedaling on his views of the translation MSS not being dictations, and some concessions to Metcalfe, at least in part, if not in whole. We'll see if Gee can admit that his missing papyri theory is nothing but wishful thinking and the fallacy of possible proof.

Jan Anderson: Where are you getting your information from? And what specifically have you heard?

Dan Vogel: My source is the same as CK's. Hauglid admitted to Brent that he had been somewhat green when they debated here, but had changed his mind on some matters, including the trajectory and relationship of the translation MSS

Juliann: I did some checking and what is being claimed here about what Hauglid is at best greatly exaggerated and at worst, false. More to come on that.

Brent Metcalfe: What I’m claiming that Brian and I have discussed is neither exaggerated nor false. I hope you are going directly to Brian. If what he tells you is anything contrary to what I’ve stated, I will have no other recourse than to post his email messages in full—then readers can judge for themselves whose integrity remains intact.

Will Schryver: Having spoken with Brian at length just a few hours ago, I can assure you (and Brent, if this is his impression) that someone has misunderstood. Brian has NOT come to believe that either Ms. #2 or #3 are transcripts from a "translation" session.

Brent Metcalfe: I think the easiest way to clear things up would be to simply post the emails that Brian sent to me. Since you and he seem to be on very close terms, please ask him if that is acceptable (I’d, of course, post all of my email messages as well).

Will Schryver: I have been aware that he has corresponded with you. I do not know the details of those communications. I find it difficult to believe that they would tend to contradict what I know of Brian's views regarding the KEPA. You seem to be insinuating that they do. Well, I guess we shall see.

Brent Metcalfe: Please reread my initial post. I made it very clear that “Brian and I share an increasing common ground, but we also have fundamental differences.” I stand by that observation. If Brian tells you otherwise, I’ll take that as tacit permission to post his emails that explicitly confirm my claim.

Brent Metcalfe: As successful as you may consider your mind meld with Brian, I hope you won’t be offended if I correspond directly with Brian in lieu of some self-anointed doppelgänger. On a more serious note, Brian and I have exchanged multiple emails today and we both concur that this matter is best put behind us.

Will Schryver: That you saw fit to correspond with Brian is a good thing, as far as I am concerned

Brent Metcalfe: Actually, Brian saw fit to correspond with me—he initiated today’s exchange, not me. To reiterate, the text-critical chasm between me and Brian has shrunk; we now share common ground on several critical issues. But as I’ve also stated, fundamental differences remain. I see no reason to elaborate beyond this.

If they represent a reverse-engineering process of guys trying to figure out Joseph Smith's translation process, then why do they take this particular form?

If they are copied from another, earlier manuscript (Q?), and the Egyptian characters were added later, then why are they divided in this particular way?

Why not a simple, continuous manuscript without breaks or divisions? I am trying to understand the reasoning here, but the simplest explanation thus far seems to be the only real coherent explanation offered--that these represent translation documents produced by dictation.

Kevin Graham wrote:You need to consider that Hauglid's presentation was premature, and he has since admitted several errors as Brent pointed them out. There was a great discussion at MADB a while back.

William Schryver wrote:I will simply state, as I have previously, that it is apparent to me that the scribes, and perhaps Joseph Smith himself, did believe that the Book of Breathings text was the source for the Book of Abraham. That statement, in and of itself, is at the root of any changes in Brian's opinions and my own. I suppose it might be said that, while we don't reject outright the possibility that there was an Abraham text somewhere else on the scrolls, we now tend towards some species of "catalyst" theory regarding the production of the Book of Abraham.

CaliforniaKid wrote:Thanks for pointing out that quote, Kishkumen. I forgot that Will had made that concession. There's certainly none of that to be found in his posts at present.

I believe Joseph Smith could have mistaken the snsn text as the source of the text of the Book of Abraham, and yet I don't believe KEPA 2 and 3 are the transcripts of his oral dictation of the text.