KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_beastie]

Bumping up to show Will that he's failed, when even his most ardent supporter admits that there is no reason to reject Nibley's theory if it can be demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al would have believed Masonic figures were, indeed, Egyptian.

First of all, the alleged failure may only occur after the condition I set has been met. It hasn't, and so you are mistaken in claiming that Will has "failed".

Second, I did not say "there is no reason to reject Nibley's theory". I said, "I don't know that I would have a reason to reject a reverse-engineered theory." The former is stated emphatically and with certainty, the later was intentionally stated cautiously and with uncertainty. So, you are also mistaken about what I said.

Two out of two mistakes isn't bad for you, though. I encourage you in your progress.

I always enjoy it when believers accuse me of making mistakes in the midst of responding to a post that they didn't bother to read carefully.

See the big red words above which you ignored. I did qualify IF it can be demonstrated. Of course, I think it's been effectively demonstrated for reasonable people, but I knew I had to qualify it with IF due to the people I was dealing with.

Aside from that blunder of yours, the point is that Will disagrees with you. He stated that it didn't matter one whit if Joseph Smith et al believed the characters were Egyptian. It didn't alter his thesis at all. That's why I went to the extent of sharing lengthy quotes from his presentation that showed it did matter, and it mattered quite a bit: in fact, it was the reason he used to reject Nibley. You - his most ardent supporter - weren't able to recognize that it shouldn't make a difference. So Will utterly failed in conveying whatever it is he wanted to convey, even to people who desperately want him to be right.

by the way, Nibley's theory IS reverse engineering.

Second by the way: your exit due to being so deeply offended over FUBAR doesn't fool anyone. Well, maybe it fools you. If you aren't offended by Will insinuating that Brent is hiding some dark secret about Hofmann, or offended by him responding to me by telling me he didn't want to see me naked due to my (incorrect) age - then you being offended by FUBAR is highly selective and convenient.

And isn't it delightful to see a man who brags about not only having friends in such high places AND having his "calling and election made sure" behave like this? Yeehaw, that's what you have to look forward to in the CK. Lovely. Just lovely.

[_kairos]

as a nevermo with tbm my wife and 4 adult tbm offspring and a long time lurker here and at the so-called MAD board, i have been interested in this topic since the 1968 return of the Joseph Smith papyrii to the LDS church. looking through the index of Dialogue essays i recently ran across an essay by ed ashment who apparently was in a running gun battle on the Book of Abraham with nibley during the time nibley was pulling out his hair trying to get an explanation that at least he could sell to the sheep. ashment seemed to demolish nibley at every turn on the Book of Abraham translation, kep and in particular nibley's theory that the "scribes did it" referring to the GAEL.

my question, is ashment any where around these days? has he bailed from the church? do his earlier seemingly fact based essays help in the present discussion?

ok - i will go back to the nursery now, i hear WS crying!!!

thanx
k

[_Aristotle Smith]

my question, is ashment any where around these days?

He's still alive. He never finished his Ph.D. in Egyptology and has left academia for a regular job.

has he bailed from the church?

Yes, he has bailed from the church. I don't know if he maintains his membership or if he has resigned.

do his earlier seemingly fact based essays help in the present discussion?

Probably not. Ashment was dealing with the core issues. Will Schryver and friends are speculating about a minor issue. I know they think they can parley this minor issue into a big win for the apologetic cause, but outside the narrow circle of 2nd tier MADB apologists, it isn't going to happen.

i will go back to the nursery now, i hear WS crying!!!

It's probably diaper rash from sitting in his own feces for too long.

[_William Schryver]

I have demonstrated that virtually everything Edward Ashment ever wrote concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was incorrect.

Of course, he didn't write very much in the first place. He basically just echoed what Richard Howard had asserted before.

If he wants to come out of retirement, however, I'm also willing to publicly debate him on the topic of the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Perhaps Ashment is not suffering from andropause to the same degree as that guy in Washington ...

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

Nibley did, indeed, recognize there were nonEgyptian characters in the KEP.

(From Nibley's The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers)
The Richards text ("Bk. of Abr. Ms. #4") is dated 1841—the date is written on the back of it in the hand of Thomas Bullock—and contains no Egyptian characters.

beastlie dear, you would do well to vacate this discussion sooner rather than later. You're in way over your pretty little head.

The Book of Abraham text of the Richards manuscript doesn't have any characters of any kind on it, Egyptian or otherwise (a fact with significant import, by the way).

Not only that, but the last two pages (containing 3:18b - 3:26a) contain visual copying errors that attest to a no longer extant parent text for that portion of the manuscript--another in a long list of evidences for a missing Book of Abraham urtext.

[_Kevin Graham]

I have demonstrated that virtually everything Edward Ashment ever wrote concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers was incorrect

Yes Will, we all know you're a legend in your own mind. But in the real world, even your little choir of sychophants have a difficult time explaining what it is you've supposedly refuted. Given half the chance they'll misrepresent your position too because they aren't interested in weighing evidence and analying viewpoints. They are only interested in accepting whatever the apologetic side comes up with, uncritically. Your arguments are convoluted and clearly designed to avoid the relevant evidences. The rest of us are staring at the elephant in the room while you and your circus sideshow are over at MADB wearing fluorescent jumpgear, using flares and any other kind of diversionary device you can find while screaming through a blowhorn "Looky over here... dittograph... cipher... looky looky." You can't afford to deal with the elephant, which is the sad fact that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents. You have to avoid it at all costs to maintain your pitiful faith in that pervert. You probably got your idiotic "cipher" inspiration after looking at the markings on your magic underwear. How scholarly!

And Ed Ashment has published more on this subject than you probably ever will. He mopped the floors with your mentor for years, and you're in no position to turn all of that history on its head. All you can do is add further embarrassment to Nibley's failed apologetics.

You're a joke Will. You're a coward. You talk tough online because you can, but we all know that you are a phony who never had any intention of debating anyone, least of all me. Now go back to braiding your ponytail you putz.

[_beastie]

beastlie dear, you would do well to vacate this discussion sooner rather than later. You're in way over your pretty little head.

The Book of Abraham text of the Richards manuscript doesn't have any characters of any kind on it, Egyptian or otherwise (a fact with significant import, by the way).

Not only that, but the last two pages (containing 3:18b - 3:26a) contain visual copying errors that attest to a no longer extant parent text for that portion of the manuscript--another in a long list of evidences for a missing Book of Abraham urtext.

Ok, I accept that correction.

But I'm still curious: do you really believe Nibley, with his formal Egyptian training and 40 years of studying the Book of Abraham, did not recognize that the KEP contained nonEgyptian characters? I find that amazing.

[_beastie]

So, Will, can you give Wade a reason to reject Nibley's theory IF Joseph Smith et al actually believed the Masonic characters were Egyptian?

And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain how Nibley's statement doesn't contradict your primary thesis about the cipher:

It was not the habit of Joseph Smith to suppress his revelations. He made every effort to see to it that each excerpt from the book of Abraham was published to the world the moment it was presentable. "One cannot read the pages of the early periodicals of the Church," writes James R. Clark, " . . . without being impressed with the fact that to Joseph Smith, availability of the new revelations of God where people could read them and immediately profit by their instruction was more important than the technicality of having acomplete text of these ancient records at the start . . . " Hence, Clark notes, it was his custom to publish them in the form of extracts as he went along.30

[_William Schryver]

Cracker Graham:

… Ed Ashment has published more on this subject than you probably ever will.

Your ignorance is showing … again.

Please feel free to list a short bibliography of Edward Ashment’s publications on the topic of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Given his prodigious output on the subject, it shouldn’t be too hard for you to dig up a few titles.
.
.
.
beastlie:

… do you really believe Nibley, with his formal Egyptian training and 40 years of studying the Book of Abraham, did not recognize that the KEP contained nonEgyptian characters?

It doesn’t matter what I believe. All I know is that, If he did, he never said or wrote anything about it.

… can you give Wade a reason to reject Nibley's theory IF Joseph Smith et al (sic) actually believed the Masonic characters were Egyptian?

I confess I haven’t followed your discussion with Wade, except in “scan mode.” I only have so much time to expend on the idiocy of this message board.

I assume you’re talking about Nibley’s “reverse engineering” theory.

Nibley’s “reverse engineering” theory is untenable irrespective of what Joseph Smith et alii believed about the linguistic origins of the characters selected for the “Egyptian” Alphabet.

Likewise, my theses of the meaning and purpose of the KEP are not dependent in the least on whether or not Joseph Smith et al. believed the Masonic characters were of Egyptian origin. If you had really paid attention to my FAIR conference presentation, you would understand that the "reverse engineering" thesis is disproved by something much more definitive in nature.

[_William Schryver]

Whoops! I also meant to reply to this:

Cracker Graham:

You can't afford to deal with the elephant, which is the sad fact that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents.

As I have made perfectly clear for several years now, I do not believe that Joseph Smith knew how to translate ancient documents. At least not in the sense you seem to be suggesting. As I again reiterated in my FAIR conference presentation (which you also have apparently either never viewed; do not understand; or just can't remember) I don't believe Joseph Smith ever in his life performed what we would consider an "academic-style" translation in order to produce his restorations of ancient scripture.

I don't believe he knew how to translate the "reformed Egyptian" in which the plates of Mormon were authored.

I don't believe he knew how to translate the (presumably) Greek in which the parchment of John (D&C 7) was authored.

I don't believe he knew how to translate the combination of hieroglyphic/hieratic Egyptian in which the scrolls containing the books of Abraham and Joseph were authored.

His "translations" of all of these things were received exclusively via revelation.