KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Kishkumen]

Yes...it is almost as meaningless as pointing out the meaninglessness of tallies.

Pointing out the meaninglessness of something is a useful service, since it removes BS from the discussion.

Not that I care about such things, but I am sure you are right about Kevin's superior KEP knowledge. It was made self-evident by his uncommon willingness to thoughtfully and insightfully engage my reasonable questions.

Listen, I am not sure why you are directing this snark to me. I think I have been pretty fair and reasonable with you. If you have a problem with Kevin, tell him about it. His choice not to answer some questions you posed is not evidence of your superior knowledge. Or is that what you are trying to tell me?

I should add that asking questions is not necessarily a neutral enterprise. People on all sides of the LDS issue seem to be aware of that fact. Sometimes people pose questions with an agenda. Apologists accuse critics of doing this, and critics sometimes accuse apologists of the same. If your questions are based on certain underlying premises that Kevin does not accept, then he is unlikely to answer them.

You probably understand that, but I thought I would point it out anyways.

[Tator]

I don't know that it has been demonstrated. To me, that question is still open to serious debate. But, for the sake of discussion, let's go ahead and grant that it has been demonstrated, in which case I don't know that I would have a reason to reject a reverse-engineered theory. In fact, that was my opinion prior to learning that many of the KEP characters were not Egyptian--though I viewed the KEP more as a linguistic instruction tool rather than a Rosetta Stone.

Thank you for that admission. That was my point: that, at least by Will's presentation, the nonEgyptian characters were THE reason for dismissing Nibley's theory. by the way, I find it pretty unlikely that Nibley didn't know there were nonEgyptian characters in the KEP.

You are mistaken about religious information, other than the identity of religious leaders, not being hidden. In fact, it was quite a common practice. Many of the prominant secret societies of that day, and generation before then, were religious in nature. It may interest you to learn that back in that day the Vatican had its own cryptography department.

I am currently in the process of writing up a brief history of religious use of ciphers. I posted a thread at MaDB not long ago where I spoke of ciphers and "pure language" that were instituted by God. It didn't generate much interest, but you are welcome to look it up. Or, you can wait until I finish working on the section of religious ciphers instituted by men, and I will attach the combined history to a thread at MaDB.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm talking specifically about the practice of the early LDS church, not other religions. They used code to protect leaders' identities, not to hide theology.

Do you appreciate how little sense it makes to suggest that the portions of the Book of Abraham in the KEP were sensitive and had to be encrypted, when Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham? Now perhaps you, or Will, will be able to put something together that explains this, but currently, it should be recognized as a serious flaw.

[_Kishkumen]

One of the benefits of Stonehenge as an alien landing pad is that it isn't self-evident that it is an alien landing pad. In a way, it is what may be termed a disguised alien landing pad--an alien landing pad that doesn't appear to be an alien landing pad. In fact, judging from the negative reactions of many of the skeptics to the very suggestion that Stonehenge is an alien landing pad, speaks to its successful design as an alien landing pad.

Now that is funny.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm talking specifically about the practice of the early LDS church, not other religions. They used code to protect leaders' identities, not to hide theology.

Trevor made this observation a while back, and I thought it was a sound one. I still do.

Do you appreciate how little sense it makes to suggest that the portions of the Book of Abraham in the KEP were sensitive and had to be encrypted, when Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham? Now perhaps you, or Will, will be able to put something together that explains this, but currently, it should be recognized as a serious flaw.

This, as much as anything, has been one of the reasons I have a difficult time accepting this "cipher" hypothesis. Maybe this is where the pure language part kicks in. When you think it is all pointless, just add a dash of pure language hypothesis, and the motive is clear again.

[_beastie]

Trevor made this observation a while back, and I thought it was a sound one. I still do.

Yes, I remember someone else pointing it out.

This, as much as anything, has been one of the reasons I have a difficult time accepting this "cipher" hypothesis. Maybe this is where the pure language part kicks in. When you think it is all pointless, just add a dash of pure language hypothesis, and the motive is clear again.

Of course, to them, pure language = Egyptian, so it doesn't really give apologists the escape hatch they desire.

[_sock puppet]

I'm talking specifically about the practice of the early LDS church, not other religions. They used code to protect leaders' identities, not to hide theology.

Trevor made this observation a while back, and I thought it was a sound one. I still do.

Do you appreciate how little sense it makes to suggest that the portions of the Book of Abraham in the KEP were sensitive and had to be encrypted, when Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham? Now perhaps you, or Will, will be able to put something together that explains this, but currently, it should be recognized as a serious flaw.

This, as much as anything, has been one of the reasons I have a difficult time accepting this "cipher" hypothesis. Maybe this is where the pure language part kicks in. When you think it is all pointless, just add a dash of pure language hypothesis, and the motive is clear again.

As Kevin has also pointed out, the A&G include 'sounds' for the characters. That is something a language has, but a cipher does not. If the KEP were not used as translation tools and 'work papers', then the next best theory is 'reverse engineering' attempt to create a Rosetta Stone. Both are extremely problematic for Mormon defenders given Joseph Smith's own descriptions and claims of what he was doing, and the Church's official introductory claims to the BoAbr. Obviously, the Church has taken Joseph Smith's words literally in this regard, and asks anyone reading the BoAbr to do likewise.

Either as translation tools or a reverse engineering attempt to create a 'Rosetta Stone' to unlock ancient Egyptian characters, it ties the characters on the Sensen papyri to the BoAbr text. Problem is, the Egyptian characters do not translate into the English text of the BoAbr.

I think Kishkumen is suggesting that BoAbr defenders step back from the literal attestations by Joseph Smith as to what he was doing. Having clung to the literalness and stretching beyond all reason to try to make the square peg fit in the round hole of logic, they've driven many once-TBMs away.

Kishumen, I understand, thinks that the BoAbr might be a 'sacred text' even if Joseph Smith was not doing what he claimed he was with the Egyptian characters on the papyri. For me, a text would not be 'sacred' in a religious sense unless I truly believed it was directed by God, through revelation, in its original composition (God inspiring Abraham to write the substance of it in the Egyptian characters) and its translation (God inspiring Joseph Smith to write that same substance in English, or God just implanting the story of Abraham in Joseph Smith's mind, the papyri and its characters being nothing more than a 'catalyst'). If I believed that, and I could cull out of it any directives to live by to get to heaven, then I would do so, or commit other information to memory if needed as a 'key' to get passed St. Peter at the pearly gates.

For me, text would not be 'sacred' in a human experience/historical sense unless its antiquity could withstand scrutiny. Even then, it might have wisdom of the ages to live by as a general guideline, but I would not follow it implicitly thinking my eternal salvation depended upon it.

If I thought Joseph Smith, a 19th Century figure in American religion, merely studied long and hard and was concentrating on this and he mentally pieced together from his readings of Genesis and expanded on that to assemble what is the BoAbr, but did not believe God exists and put the story into Joseph Smith's head, I would dismiss it as the musings of a self-delusional (or a deliberate fraud). It might make for interesting study, historically, psychologically and sociologically--but to live by, no thank you.

[_wenglund]

Listen, I am not sure why you are directing this snark to me. I think I have been pretty fair and reasonable with you.

Yes, you have. and, I apologize--though I didn't intend for it to be snarky, just a little fascetious.

I guess what puzzles me is that in terms of the relevance of the KEP to the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling, you and I are in agreement (though for reasons that excape me, you seem to think otherwise), whereas you and Kevin (and Sock Puppet) seem diametrically opposed. Yet, you are taking issue on that point with me. I must admit that this leaves me scratching my head and wondering why you aren't talking to Kevin and Sock Pupppet about it.

Anyway, you mentioned earlier:

No, I am more inclined to think that the unfortunate approach taken to the issue of Joseph Smith's translations in traditional LDS apologetics did its fair share to set people up for this grand disappointment. You see, if apologists hadn't traditionally placed such a premium on the importance of the literal antiquity of Joseph Smith's literal translations of actual ancient documents he had sitting in front of him, then these folks' interpretations of that not really matching up well with what they were seeing wouldn't have been such a big problem for them.

Now we find ourselves at a point in time when a number of apologists have belatedly caught up and accepted the notion that this doesn't work so well, so they are now acting as though these critics are "fundamentalists" who just don't see that all of this doesn't matter in a postmodernist apologetic. Well, fundamentalists don't just train themselves, my friend. They were helped down this path by some apologists who to this very day continue to talk of missing scrolls and who expect that if we could only look at the document Joseph Smith possessed and did translate, we would see Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham in Egyptian, which any trained Egyptologist could readily translate.

I can only speak for myself as someone who is reluctant to class myself as an apologists, but while I do hold firm to the Church's truth-claims about Joseph's revelatory translation of ancient documents (and this because I firmly believe it to be true), I don't see how that somehow burdens me with the responsibility for members losing their testimony by buying into the arguments of critics that the Book of Abraham was translated academically from the KEP. I have consitently suggested quite the opposite. This would be akin to faulting traditional geologist for some people's loss of faith in that science because of the "big problem" they may have experienced when traditional geology didn't match up with the arguments bought into from the flat earth society. :)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

the questions were designed for critics who have taken the position that the KEP were intended as a key to translate the Chandler papyri into the Book of Abraham.

Earth to wade: No one here has ever argued this. No one.

I pointed this out a day after Will's presentation but you seem to be dead set on pretending this somehow refutes something we've argued. You're not one to let a straw man go to waste, huh?

In the meantime, stop pretending your questions have me running from something when I never argued what it is you pretend to be refuting.

[_wenglund]

I'm talking specifically about the practice of the early LDS church, not other religions. They used code to protect leaders' identities, not to hide theology.

I don't think you fully grasp the broad diversity of cryptographic methodologies used by the Church throughout the ages. Please read the thread I linked to in my response to Sock Puppet above, as well as the file attached to this MaDB post:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208902830

Do you appreciate how little sense it makes to suggest that the portions of the Book of Abraham in the KEP were sensitive and had to be encrypted, when Joseph Smith immediately tried to publish the Book of Abraham?

But, he didn't. Efforts to publish the Book of Abraham didn't commence until several years after the KEP project was abandoned, and it wasn't actually published until more than a half decade later.

Besides, even were it to have been published "immediately" after the KEP project was abandoned, that does not negate or render senseless the intended purpose of the KEP as cipher/"pure language". At best it points to a change of mind.

Now perhaps you, or Will, will be able to put something together that explains this, but currently, it should be recognized as a serious flaw.

To a great extent I have already explained this (see the resources mentioned above). I trust that Brother Schryver will do so as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

As Kevin has also pointed out, the A&G include 'sounds' for the characters. That is something a language has, but a cipher does not.

This is actually incorrect. Ciphers take a variety of forms: written, audio (most notably, Morse Code), and visual (gang signs, tagging, etc.)

Also, if you would read the attached file that I linked to in my response to Beastie above, you will find that there are languages that began as ciphers--not the least of which was hieratics, which just happened to be the Egyptian script in which the papyri were written.

Besides, as I have pointed out, the existence of the sounds in the KEP work against the theory the KEP were a translation modus operandi for Egyptian, and this because Egyptian was only written at that time, and not spoken.

If the KEP were not used as translation tools and 'work papers', then the next best theory is 'reverse engineering' attempt to create a Rosetta Stone.

Actually, none of these theories best fit the data, and even conflict with some data..

Both are extremely problematic for Mormon defenders given Joseph Smith's own descriptions and claims of what he was doing, and the Church's official introductory claims to the BoAbr. Obviously, the Church has taken Joseph Smith's words literally in this regard, and asks anyone reading the BoAbr to do likewise.

I would like to hear what Kish has to say about this. He seems to think that the loss of faith of certain members is because of how traditional apologists have framed the issue, whereas we now find Sock Puppet claiming it is in the way that Joseph Smith and the Church has described things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-