KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Kishkumen]

Saying that the KEP was made up is to speak only to HOW the KEP were produced, whereas Will's thesis speaks to WHEN they were produced in relation to the Book of Abraham, WHAT the KEP's dependancy may have been on the Book of Abraham, and his hypothesis speaks to WHY the KEP may have been produced.

So, what did this early manuscript look like? And how do you know?

[_sock puppet]

Saying that the KEP was made up is to speak only to HOW the KEP were produced, whereas Will's thesis speaks to WHEN they were produced in relation to the Book of Abraham, WHAT the KEP's dependancy may have been on the Book of Abraham, and his hypothesis speaks to WHY the KEP may have been produced.

So, what did this early manuscript look like? And how do you know?

Kish,

It is sort of like heaven, a place that has to be believed before it can be seen. You must first believe in the early manuscript before you can conjure an image of it your mind to know what is looks like. If you believe, it can look like however you need it to look to fit your theory. If you don't believe, well then you have not image in your mind or theory for it.

[_Kishkumen]

Kish,

It is sort of like heaven, a place that has to be believed before it can be seen. You must first believe in the early manuscript before you can conjure an image of it your mind to know what is looks like. If you believe, it can look like however you need it to look to fit your theory. If you don't believe, well then you have not image in your mind or theory for it.

LOL. Indeed, sock puppet.

But seriously, I am very curious about the material in this early manuscript. Since some of the KEP material does not appear in the Book of Abraham, I guess they will say that this material was in later chapters of the Book of Abraham that were translated but are now lost? I also hear that they are assigning Joseph material to the lost manuscript of the Book of Joseph. So now we have two lost manuscripts. What we evidently can't have, because of the obvious dittograph, is earlier Abraham and Joseph material that did not exist as a continuous narrative, which, in the case of Abraham, must look like chapters 1-3.

This is what I am guessing, although I haven't been following all of these exciting and conclusive developments extremely closely.

[Gadianton]

Wade,

Please tell me what exactly any of this has to do with maintaining anyone's belief or unbelief in the divine calling of Joseph Smith as prophet of the Restoration. I double dog dare ya.

This question, in its various incarnations, has been asked and answered a number of times here and elsewhere and since before Will's presentation, if not also in apologetic responses over the last 40 years

The problem with this question is that it is being directed to the wrong people.

As mentioned earlier, the KEP issue would not even have registered a blip on the LDS apologetic radar had the critics not spent so much time and energy loudly beating this drum for the last 40 years. They, or at least some of them, have been the ones insinuating that this issue has negative implications regarding the divine calling of Joseph Smith as prophet of the Restoration, and I don't know that they haven't been somewhat successful convincing some people of that. Take Markk for example, if not also Kevin Graham and Paul Osborne.

What makes Will's presentation a big deal, is that it portends to affectively negate the KEP argument that the critics have made over the past 40 years. What also makes it a big deal is how remarkably the critics continue to hold tenaciously to and argue desparately in favor of their position in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary--presumably because they have considerable invested interest in holding on to it for dear life.

If egos are behind any of this, it is the critics. Will and I and others who came late to this game, are simply having a bit of fun at the critic's expense. I first approached this subject about 10 months ago, and I did so with a "let the chips fall where they may" attitude. And, while my innitial conclusions tenden in the direction of Will's thesis, there were aspects of his presentation that convinced me that I was in part wrong, and I had no problem accepting and adjusting to the new findings.

As I see things, we apologists have felt all along, and have even argued that the KEP is entirely irrelevant to the verity of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And, we continue to reiterate that message. I implied as much in several comments I have made in this thread as well as the statement to which you are here responding.

So, you really should be asking the critics this question, not me or other apologists, and asking them this for the last 40 years.

What drives my interest at this point, may be little different from you or Don Bradley. To me, Will's discovery opens up a historical avenue for visiting somewhat unexplored dimensions of the lives of the early saints, if not also saints and prophets of old.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

So, what did this early manuscript look like? And how do you know?

I can't know (since it isn't extant), nor am I certain that it was in manuscript form (it could have been commited to memory), but I suspect it looked like a revelatory translation of portions of the BoA--not unlike the many other revelatory translations preceeding it.

In terms of the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling, does it matter what it looks like?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

As mentioned earlier, the KEP issue would not even register a blip on the LDS apologetic radar had the critics not spent so much time and energy loudly and frequently beating this drum for the last 40 years.

So, in other words, the bad criticisms of your opponents set your agenda.

What makes Will's presentation a big deal, is that it portends to affectively negate the KEP argument the critics have made over the past 40 years. What also makes it a big deal is how remarkably the critics hold on to and argue desparately in favor of their position in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary--presumably because they have considerable invested interest in holding on to it for dear life.

Well, it is not clear to most people how the evidence is "mounting" as you say. Since we have yet to see a single publication, and most of the argument has concerned the dittograph, you'll have to excuse me if I don't follow you in your exuberance. And, no, I don't think this is simply a matter of "critics being desperate;" it is a matter of people who have studied the documents for some time not being persuaded yet. In other words, this drama is largely one of Will's manufacture.

If egos are behind any of this, it is the critics. Will and I and others who came late to this game, are simply having a bit of fun at the critic's expense.

Please don't tell me that you really believe this.

I approach this subject with a "let the chips fall where they may" attitude, and while my innitial conclusions tenden in the direction of Will's thesis, there was part of his presentation that convinced me that I was in part wrong, and I had no problem accepting and adjusting to the new findings.

Hmmm... well, I can't say that the video clip of you repeating the same idea over and over regardless of any explanations or challenges to the contrary gave me the impression that you have a "let the chips fall where they may" attitude.

As I see things, we apologists have felt all along, and have even argued that the KEP is entirely irrelevant to the verity of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And, we continue to reiterate that message. I implied as much in several comments I have made in this thread as well as the statement to which you are here responding.

You know, I would like to believe that, but when so many apologists accuse my friends of simply being biased by their hate not to accept Will's theory enthusiastically, well that kind of lays bare the inaccuracy of your contention. Have you asked Don what he thinks? I am sure he would do what Trevor did (not surprising, since the two are friends); he would express praise for interesting observations, but likely would say he was not persuaded, at least yet.

And that has nothing to do with anti-Mormon bias... since Don was recently baptized LDS.

So, you really should be asking the critics this question, not us, and asking them this for the last 40 years.

I am asking you that, because your behavior and the behavior of other apologists, makes it a pertinent question.

What drives my interest at this point, may be little different from you or Don Bradley. To me, Will's discovery opens up a historical avenue for visiting somewhat unexplored dimensions of the lives of the early saints, if not also saints and prophets of old.

So you are now committed not to assume immediately that disagreement with all or part of Will's thesis is all about anti-Mormon bias?

Regards,

The Right Reverend Severus M. Kishkumen

[_Kishkumen]

I can't know (since it isn't extant), nor am I certain that it was in manuscript form (it could have been commited to memory), but I suspect it looked like a revelatory translation of portions of the BoA--not unlike the many other revelatory translations preceeding it.

In terms of the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling, does it matter what it looks like?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciate your candor, Wade. It seems to me that you are being reasonable about things here. I do find it interesting that you are now conceding that there may have been no manuscript at all, but simply things in Joseph Smith's memory, which he could recall at any point later to do with as he was inspired.

And as you say, the issue of the verity of Smith's calling has nothing to do with what it looked like. And I'll go you one further... it doesn't have anything to do with whether it existed either.

[_wenglund]

I appreciate your candor, Wade. It seems to me that you are being reasonable about things here. I do find it interesting that you are now conceding that there may have been no manuscript at all, but simply things in Joseph Smith's memory, which he could recall at any point later to do with as he was inspired.

And as you say, the issue of the verity of Smith's calling has nothing to do with what it looked like. And I'll go you one further... it doesn't have anything to do with whether it existed either.

I respect that, and I appreciate your open-minded approach to the question as well. It is refreshing and a pleasure to engage.

However, just one minor correction. While you may just now have heard me "concede" this, there hasn't been a time since I have explored this issue when I wasn't open to it, and there have also been several occasions in the last month or so where I have proactively made the suggestion myself--not that it really matters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kishkumen]

While you may just now have heard me "concede" this, there hasn't been a time since I have explored this issue when I wasn't open to it, and there have also been several occasions in the last month or so where I have proactively made the suggestion myself--not that it really matters.

I'm sorry I missed those occasions, Wade. It matters to me that you have expressed openness to the possibility. I appreciate the correction.

[_William Schryver]

I tell you what, let’s do a little test. I have in mind a particular short story by a famous American author. It is only 4 ½ pages long. The story takes place in Italy. Two men are the principal characters. I want you to make a list of 50 “substantial words.” Then we’ll compare that list of words to the story, and see if over 90% of the words on your list appear in that story. If you can even achieve a hit ratio of 30%, I’ll be impressed. You can’t include any articles, conjunctions, or prepositions, or any words with only generic application. They have to be very unique words, with very specific applications, similar in nature to the “unique” words as Schryver classified them in his study.

Here’s a list of ten words (selected from my post) that I would consider “unique” in the same way Schryver’s classified the EA words in his study.

• logical
• method
• theory
• audience
• papyrus
• Wonderland
• classification
• dictation
• manuscript
• illustrate

As soon as you complete and post your list, I will compare it to the story and see how successfully you were able to select only unique words that come from that story.

You still have never explained how Schryver or you are deciding whether a word is "unique" or "generic."

"[A] particular short story by a famous American author. It is only 4 ½ pages long. The story takes place in Italy. Two men are the principal characters."

Of course, how many pages it is depends on what edition you are reading. So here you go:

injuries
revenge
retribution
connosisserurship
gemmary
vintages
carnival
motley
Amontillado
Sherry
vaults
engagement
nitre
distinguish
mask
roqeulaire
flambeaux
catacombs
staircase
rheum
intoxication
draught
Medoc
bottle
defend
damps
azure
serpent
bells
puncheons
brotherhood
masons
crypt
walls
Paris
bones
granite
ignoramus
mortar
trowel
niche
staples
padlock
links
moaning
obstinate
tier
clanking
rapier
clamorer
screams
joke
palazzo
wine
aperture
jingling
century
rampart

Oh, my!

DaftJ has, quite inadvertantly I’m sure, just provided me with one of the most persuasive and compelling apologetic defenses of my dependency thesis in the one month since my FAIR conference presentation!

Thank you, DaftJ, thank you.

In fact, as soon as I return from my Labor Day getaway with Sorella Schryver (who also, incidentally, served with me in the Italy Catania Mission back in ’79-’81) I will start a new thread in the Pundits Forum of the MADB board in order to elaborate on DaftJ’s accidental defense of the substantial word study to which I made reference in my summary presentation at the FAIR conference.

In the meantime, I leave you all with the lyrics to the song The Cask of Amontillado as authored by the late Eric Woolfson, the poet/composer behind the many great albums produced by The Alan Parsons Project in the late 1970s and 1980s.

The Cask Of Amontillado

By the last breath of the four winds that blow
I’ll have revenge upon Fortunato
Smile in his face I’ll say "Come let us go,
I’ve a cask of amontillado."

Sheltered inside from the cold of the snow
Follow me now to the vault down below
Drinking the wine as we laugh at the time
Which is passing incredibly slow

What are these chains that are binding my arm …
Part of you dies each passing day
Say it’s a game and I’ll come to no harm …
You feel your life slipping away

You who are rich and whose troubles are few
May come around to see my point of view
What price the crown of a king on his throne
When you’re chained in the dark all alone

Spare me my life only name your reward …
Part of you dies each brick I lay
Bring back some light in the name of the Lord …
You feel your mind slipping away