KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Runtu]

I only have so much time to expend on the idiocy of this message board.

Apparently, the idiocy of the MAD board is far more time-consuming for you. :-)

[_dblagent007]

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.

Will, do you believe Joseph Smith ever possessed a document, written in Egyptian (heiratic or hyroglypics) that contained the text of the Book of Abraham?

[_William Schryver]

I only have so much time to expend on the idiocy of this message board.

Apparently, the idiocy of the MAD board is far more time-consuming for you. :-)

No, in fact I have expended very little time on any message board of late. And I'm down to my last five minutes of today's quota.

I have, however, seen enough to note the continuing evidence of your apostate malaise. No doubt you'll be a candidate for the dating game before too much longer.
.
.
.
dblagent007:

Will, do you believe Joseph Smith ever possessed a document, written in Egyptian (heiratic [sic] or hyroglypics [sic]) that contained the text of the Book of Abraham?

Yes, I do.

(As I made very clear during the Q&A session after my FAIR conference presentation.)
.
.
.
OK, my dear former brethren and sistren, that's all for today. Fare ye well ...

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

My ignorance?? I said nothing of "prodigious output" you idiot, I said he has published more than you ever will. You act as if your apologetic presentation to a small group of sychophants somehow launches you into the same league as Ashment. As far as Ashment's short list of publications, all he has to do is to be published once, and he already surpasses your output since you've never been published. But the main difference between you two is the quality of out:

Ashment, Edward H. "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal,." Sunstone December 1979
Ashment, Edward H. "Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers," Sunstone Conference Presentation, August 1980.
Ashment, Edward H. 1987. “Making the Scriptures ‘Indeed One in Our Hands’: What Happened in the New Editions.” Paper Presented at the SunStone West Symposium, Berkeley, California.
Ashment, Edward H. "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study," Signature Books, 1990.
Ashment, Edward H. "Joseph Smith's Identification of 'Abraham' in Papyrus: Joseph Smith the 'Breathing Permit of Hor'", Dialogue, December 2000.
Ashment, Edward H. "Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hôr (pJS 1)", E-Journal, December 2001 (http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp)

Ashment's refutation of Nibley had Nibley himself thanking him for the corrections. But you think you're better than both Ashment and Nibley, just because you had an epiphany one night when you noticed that a symbol on your magic underwear matched something on the counting document.

We also know that if it weren't for your willingness to demean yourself by getting on your knees to kiss so much BYU arse then we all know there isn't a chance in hell anyone in academia would give you a second's thought on this issue or any other issue for that matter. Your presence and role are based on your religious affiliation and your willingness to humilate yourself for the cause. That's it. You're a joke Will, you always have been and always will be.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant since you're an idiot. I am talking about what the Church membership believes, according to a lifetime of indoctrination. They have been taught that Joseph Smith translated Ancient Egyptian from the papyri. Whether you believe this is beside the point.

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.

Who the hell ever said anything about "academic-style" translation, moron? This is one of your favorite straw man arguments. The Church said he could translate Egyptian by revelation, and the evidence proves he couldn't. You avoid that elephant by pretending your sideshow on dittographs and ciphers somehow refutes the reasons why people have left the faith over this subject. As DarthJ and others have frequently pointed out, our disenchantment with Mormonism over this issue had nothing to do with whether or not the A&G was baased on a preexisting document, or whether the last paragraph in one manuscript was an accidental or intentional copy. This is all a smokescreen of your own making that avoids the elephant. You need these to convince people at MAD that you're actually refuting things we've said.

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

Your quasi-apostate views are irrevelant to the fact that the Church has traditionally taught that he did this. No one ever said he actually knew and understood Reformed Egyptian, Egyptian, Hebrew, or any other language. But the fact is he claimed to be able to translate these languages into English. It is your job as an apologist to perform every feat of mental gymnastics and deception, instead of dealing with the obvious.

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

No one said he did idiot. Now you're just trying to create multiple straw men from one.

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

The "means" is irrelevant to what the Church has stated about the "end product." The "means" is the apologetic happy horse, as they pretend this somehow addresses anything we've actually said. The end product was always said to be a faithful, legitimate translation from one language to another. The end product is what's being put under the glass and shown to be something else entirely.

[_beastie]

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

Well, then, he was a dunce, wasn't he? He formally studied Egyptian, he studied the KEP for forty years, and didn't recognize there were nonEgyptian characters? Sheesh.

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.

Funny. You can't give a simple, direct answer. All you can do is assert that you've provided something "more definitive in nature" without indicating what that definitive thing is. Not even Wade, who has followed you like a loyal lap dog on this subject, is able to grasp what that definitive thing is.

You know, you're correct in that I'm over my head when the discussion is the details of the KEP. That's why I kept asking about Nibley: I wanted someone more knowledgeable to answer, and when they didn't, I tried to find out on my own, with my limitations. But what is really sad is that someone with the subject limitations that even I have has been able to expose a huge flaw in your argument. And that flaw is: either you didn't know that Joseph Smith et al believed the Masonic figures were Egyptian, or you omitted that rather important bit of information. Now, maybe you have some ace up your sleeve in terms of the supposed "something much more definitive in nature", but if you've shared it, not even your loyal lapdogs have gotten it. And you can't even pinpoint it, either. You just assert it exists.

[_sock puppet]

I only have so much time to expend on the idiocy of this message board.

Apparently, the idiocy of the MAD board is far more time-consuming for you. :-)

No, in fact I have expended very little time on any message board of late. And I'm down to my last five minutes of today's quota.

I have, however, seen enough to note the continuing evidence of your apostate malaise. No doubt you'll be a candidate for the dating game before too much longer.
.
.
.
dblagent007:

Will, do you believe Joseph Smith ever possessed a document, written in Egyptian (heiratic [sic] or hyroglypics [sic]) that contained the text of the Book of Abraham?

Yes, I do.

(As I made very clear during the Q&A session after my FAIR conference presentation.)
.
.
.
OK, my dear former brethren and sistren, that's all for today. Fare ye well ...

Will, if you do not believe that Joseph Smith ever translated an ancient record in a linguistic manner into English, why do you believe the actual Abraham scroll is missing? What would be God's purpose in protecting the Abrahamic scroll for centuries, no for millennia, and seeing it make its way into Joseph Smith's hands if the mechanics of the inspiration do not include Smith linguistically translating the characters/letters of the ancient record into English? That is, if God's doing all the work anyway, why did Joseph Smith need to have the artifact of the ancient writing in his possession? If the production of the BoAbr was detached from the ancient papyri, then what use was the papyri?

[_dblagent007]

Will, if you do not believe that Joseph Smith ever translated an ancient record in a linguistic manner into English, why do you believe the actual Abraham scroll is missing? What would be God's purpose in protecting the Abrahamic scroll for centuries, no for millennia, and seeing it make its way into Joseph Smith's hands if the mechanics of the inspiration do not include Smith linguistically translating the characters/letters of the ancient record into English? That is, if God's doing all the work anyway, why did Joseph Smith need to have the artifact of the ancient writing in his possession? If the production of the BoAbr was detached from the ancient papyri, then what use was the papyri?

That was how the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph didn't even use the gold plates.

Will is just trying to raise the plausibility of the Book of Abraham to at least the same level as the Book of Mormon. The problem with the Book of Abraham is that the translation manuscripts indicate that Joseph Smith pretended he was actually translating Egyptian characters that have nothing to do with Abraham into a story about Abraham. This is where the train goes off the tracks and this is where Will is doing everything he can to bolster it to at least the level of the Book of Mormon story (by doing everything possible to divorce Joseph Smith from the translation manuscripts).

[_Kishkumen]

If the production of the BoAbr was detached from the ancient papyri, then what use was the papyri?

It provided a few pretty characters for a cipher? ;-)

[_sock puppet]

If the production of the BoAbr was detached from the ancient papyri, then what use was the papyri?

It provided a few pretty characters for a cipher? ;-)

Zinger!