If Schryver proves that the KEP came after Abraham 1-3

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The KEP could be the original manuscripts of JSJr's dictating the translation of the Book of Abraham. The KEP could be a later copy made from the original manuscripts, as it appears Mr. Will Schryver will argue on Friday.

Either way, the Egyptian characters in the left hand columns might have come from JSJr or not. If the KEP are the original Book of Abraham dictation manuscripts, the scribes could nonetheless have been adding the Egyptian characters in the column without JSJr's involvement in doing so. If the KEP are handwritten copies of that original manuscript, JSJr could have instructed the scribes to put those Egyptian characters in the column.

What those Egyptian characters in the column do is establish a tie between the found papyri and the Book of Abraham text in English. Egyptologists are uniform in that the Egyptian characters on the found papyri do not match up with Book of Abraham text.

If JSJr was involved in the Egyptian characters from the found papyri being noted in the column of the KEP, then it demonstrates that he was not translating the Egyptian characters on the found papyri as he claimed.

If JSJr was not involved in the Egyptian characters from the found papyri being noted in the column, then it was the scribes who added them on their own. They were in the room with JSJr when he dictated the translation. Apart from JSJr, the scribes were in the best position to know what part of the papyri JSJr was using in the translation process.

If Mr. Schryver can prove the KEP were not the original manuscript of the Book of Abraham, it proves nothing. The original manuscript would not be available to determine if it too had the Egyptian characters from the found papyri in the column, or it did not have them.

Either way, the KEP are the earliest Book of Abraham manuscript available, and they have those Egyptian characters from the found papyri in the column.

Mr. Schryver's proof that the KEP is later than the original manuscript of the Book of Abraham translation does not dispel the notion that JSJr was involved in how those Egyptian characters from the found papyri ended up in the column.

I know Mr. Kevin Graham has expressed that there is a significance to what Mr. Schryver is trying to prove. I just do not yet understand what that significance is.

Regards,

Spider.

[_thews]

I’m with you in failing to understand the significance of the argument. I read a blog of one of the guys on MADB and in it he said something about the scribes not understanding what Joseph Smith said. What this boils down to is that any mistakes made by Joseph Smith have to be blame shifted onto someone else in order for Joe smith to be correct, and this seems to be Will’s objective… but why?

After word got out that Joe Smith could translate “reformed” Egyptian, Michael Chandler set out to find him with his collection of mummies. The point being that Joseph Smith had a reputation for being able to translate ancient languages, and like any good con man played to his target audience. He failed to identify the Greek Psalter as Greek and also claimed to translate the Kinderhook plates, so one thing we know with absolute certainty is that Joseph Smith was a liar and could not translate something that was a known fraud, but claimed to.

The $64 question then, is by what logic does it make sense to blame the incorrect KEP on the scribes? Why would they act alone without Joseph Smith? If they believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, are we to swallow the absurd notion that they gleaned enough knowledge in translating for Joseph Smith to act alone without his guidance? The most obvious thing that needs to be true to base this theory on, is that the translation of the papyrus was correct, which would then require Abraham’s writing (by his own hand) to make its way into the entrails of a mummy and written in Egyptian. Add to this the papyrus that matches the KEP with statements that Joe Smith boasted of having documents by Abraham and Joseph of Egypt, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize the end conclusion is that whatever the supposed lost portion of the papyrus Joe Smith theoretically had (Gee's argument), it was the same as what they have now, which is a common funerary text from the pagan book of the dead.

What this new presentation Will is unleashing on the apologists will ultimately do, is bring focus on the entire Book of Abraham problems, as most Mormons know little to nothing about it. Whatever Will’s argument is going to be based on, if it’s viewed from the perspective that the Book of Abraham was written first and then the papyrus was used to sell it, it will probably make perfect sense as that’s what happened. If it’s viewed from the perspective that there really was a translation of Egyptian characters written by Abraham into English telling the story of Abraham, then the “blame it on the scribes” theory may make sense… to them, but it only results in distancing Joe Smith from the data that proves it was all incorrect… just like the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and POP… 100% wrong.

[_Joseph]

Any attempt or excuse that says Joseph Smith did not translate the records known now as The Book of Abraham, from the papyrus, by revelation is preaching false doctrine. Anyone who teaches that is guilty of Apostacy.

You can't have it both ways.

Joseph Smith translated the Book from the papyus that came into the Church's possession in 1835, or he didn't. Anyone who argues he did not is an apostate preaching false doctrine.

Argue all you want, that is whaat The Church is still teaching and is still considered Doctrine.

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Messrs. Thews and Joseph,

I suppose that my point is this. If the KEP 1a and 1b were copied from an original manuscript of the Book of Abraham translation dictation (that is now lost), how does that dispel that JSJr was involved in the placement of the Egyptian characters in the left hand margins? Indeed, those Egyptian characters appearing on such exact copies (as attested to due to the exacting similarity between 1a and 1b) suggests that the Egyptian characters were on any original manuscript now lost.

There is nothing from JSJr that says that the found papyri was not the source of Egyptian from which he claims to have translated from the Book of Abraham. The Egyptian characters that appear on the found papyri--which it turns out is a funerary, not matching the English text of the Book of Abraham--also being found in the same order in the left hand columns of KEP 1a and 1b strongly suggests that whomever thought that they should be put in those columns--Joseph Smith or the scribes--thought that those Egyptian characters correlated to the respective Book of Abraham paragraphs. They do not.

On the other hand, if the KEP 1a and 1b are the original translation manuscript, how does that discount the possibility that those Egyptian characters were later added to the left hand column. Thus, Mr. Will Schryver, so what if you can show that the KEP 1a and 1b were not the original translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham?

Regards,

Spider.

[_thews]

Messrs. Thews and Joseph,

I suppose that my point is this. If the KEP 1a and 1b were copied from an original manuscript of the Book of Abraham translation dictation (that is now lost), how does that dispel that JSJr was involved in the placement of the Egyptian characters in the left hand margins? Indeed, those Egyptian characters appearing on such exact copies (as attested to due to the exacting similarity between 1a and 1b) suggests that the Egyptian characters were on any original manuscript now lost.

There is nothing from JSJr that says that the found papyri was not the source of Egyptian from which he claims to have translated from the Book of Abraham. The Egyptian characters that appear on the found papyri--which it turns out is a funerary, not matching the English text of the Book of Abraham--also being found in the same order in the left hand columns of KEP 1a and 1b strongly suggests that whomever thought that they should be put in those columns--Joseph Smith or the scribes--thought that those Egyptian characters correlated to the respective Book of Abraham paragraphs. They do not.

On the other hand, if the KEP 1a and 1b are the original translation manuscript, how does that discount the possibility that those Egyptian characters were later added to the left hand column. Thus, Mr. Will Schryver, so what if you can show that the KEP 1a and 1b were not the original translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham?

Regards,

Spider.

The entire premise that Jesus Christ/God would choose for Abraham to write something by his own hand, only to have it find its way into an Egyptian mummy, then a grave robber stealing it finds its way to the US and then to Joe Smith to be translated into the "restored" doctrine of Jesus Christ, makes as much sense as a necromancer looking through his peep stone to see evil treasure guardians for hire, then using the same seer stone to translate Christian doctrine. Just how far from the base of logic do we have to stray to call BS?

The entire argument of who translated what/when, rests on the foundation that the above is true, that the papyrus inserted into the mummies did contain Christian doctrine, and somehow Joe Smith correctly translated it. Where is the proof? What is it we conclusively know? What we know, with absolute certainty, is that the facsimiles translated by Joe Smith as depicted in the Book of Abraham and POP are wrong, have nothing to do with Abraham, and are exactly what one would expect to find inserted in a mummy to assist the person in the afterlife by providing passages from the pagan book of the dead. To continue this argument is absurd unless the possibility exists that “by his own hand” Abraham actually wrote what Michael Chandler sold to Joe Smith. Does anyone with an ounce of critical thought capability actually believe this story?

In the end, the Mormon church continues to hide the data. Will’s selective screening of what is known to have leaked out is what he’s basing his presentation on, which will give the LDS church an out in keeping all of the KEP in hiding along with the papyrus from critical examination. If this is indeed a “game changer” as the lemmings swallow their bait, then by what logic warrants the LDS church from releasing the data. Release the Kracken!

[_Spider-to-the-Fly]

Mr. Thews,
When you put it like this,

The entire premise that Jesus Christ/God would choose for Abraham to write something by his own hand, only to have it find its way into an Egyptian mummy, then a grave robber stealing it finds its way to the US and then to Joe Smith to be translated into the "restored" doctrine of Jesus Christ, makes as much sense as a necromancer looking through his peep stone to see evil treasure guardians for hire, then using the same seer stone to translate Christian doctrine. Just how far from the base of logic do we have to stray to call BS?

it sounds like a plot for another Indiana Jones movie.

It is not just the movies and novels that require the suspension of disbelief.

Regards,

Spider.

[_wenglund]

Some interesting questions have been raised in this thread, to which all I can respectfully say is: "stay tuned".

Once Will has given his presentation, we will have a better sense for whether your thoughtful questions and conjectures have been ansered and whether they have relevance or not.

Prudence, however, would advise temperance in voicing conjectures absent the least clue. There is the old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." (not that this necessarily appies in this case)

But, far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Some interesting questions have been raised in this thread, to which all I can respectfully say is: "stay tuned".

Once Will has given his presentation, we will have a better sense for whether your thoughtful questions and conjectures have been ansered and whether they have relevance or not.

Prudence, however, would advise temperance in voicing conjectures absent the least clue. There is the old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." (not that this necessarily appies in this case)

But, far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"This particular bit of esoteric Mormon trivia is trivial in a different way than some other people have previously thought."

I wonder why it is an apologist, instead of the Prophet, who is explaining the way scriptures were translated and revelation was received.

Wade? Pa Pa? Anyone?

[_wenglund]

I wonder why it is an apologist, instead of the Prophet, who is explaining the way scriptures were translated and revelation was received.

I am wondering why you are assuming, sans evidence, what an apologist will be explaining?

(I will be happy to respond to your question following Will's presentation.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

I wonder why it is an apologist, instead of the Prophet, who is explaining the way scriptures were translated and revelation was received.

I am wondering why you are assuming, sans evidence, what an apologist will be explaining?

(I will be happy to respond to your question following Will's presentation.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, he won't even be explaining that, then? I see.



That doesn't change, of course, the curiosity that with the Church being led by a living prophet, President Monson could not once and for all resolve all these Book of Abraham issues, or other issues that apologists tackle. I don't recall Joseph Smith deferring to apologists on controversies within the Church. If I recall correctly, he received revelations and spoke as a prophet.

Why don't you go right ahead and respond to my question now. Why don't prophets and apostles address any of this, instead of abdicating to FAIR?