KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_wenglund]

Please pardon my disrupting this snarl-fest with a bit of reasoned discussion news, but as promised, I have compiled a summarized list of arguments made thus far against the old theories for the purpose of the KEP. If interested, you can read and respond thoughtfully and civilly here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208910155

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Paul Osborne]

Please pardon my disrupting this snarl-fest with a bit of reasoned discussion news, but as promised, I have compiled a summarized list of arguments made thus far against the old theories for the purpose of the KEP. If interested, you can read and respond thoughtfully and civilly here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208910155

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For Christ's sake, Wade -- what is wrong with you? Don't you know that we can't speak on that Goddamn MAD Message board? We are banned. We have been cast out by the power hungry self righteous dictators who love to murder critics that have a valid argument. Go back and tell the moderators at MAD that I said they are murderers and Nazi lovers too. Tell them to take their power and ram it up their ass. They will get no such pleasure from me. I wouldn't post there if they begged me. Go tell Chaos to drop his pants and show all the girls what's hanging.

Paul O

[_beastie]

From Wade's MAD post:

4) Many of the characters used in the KEP are non-Egyptian, and likely known to have not been Egyptian, and more importantly were not from the papyri, and couldn't and thus evidently weren't intended to translate the papyri, and couldn't be used to translate Egyptian or to learn Egyptian, nor could they have been used as a prop to demonstrate that Joseph had translated the Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham.

Proof positive that these "discussions" are a complete waste of time. It would be one thing if Wade actually brought up the FACT that many nineteenth century Americans believed Masonic elements were Egyptian in origin, as well as the FACT that it is very possible that Joseph Smith thought to himself and then tried to debunk it - but he doesn't even mention it. In my experience, that is very typical of apologia in general. There's a lot of sinning by omission, in my opinion.

[_Kishkumen]

There's a lot of sinning by omission, in my opinion.

It's epidemic. Let's just be perfectly frank here. There is no compunction about dishonesty. Why? Because if it is in the service of God's One True Church, then what does it matter if a little something is left unmentioned or a fact is denied? These guys figure they have no duty to make your trip to the non-faith-promoting conclusion any easier. In fact, if a little obscurantism and misleading will help you not find out what the facts are, all the better!

I'm not saying that all apologists do it, but there are some who do it without qualm. Some of the biggest offenders have been those who deal with Book of Abraham issues. I have had TBM scholar friends with degrees from prestigious universities shake their heads when I have asked them about Book of Abraham apologetics. They simply can't understand how their friends can adopt such apparently disingenuous and disrespectful strategies.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch and runs off to ask anyone who I am talking about, it probably isn't who you are assuming it is, and I am not naming names. All I can say is that I find it nauseating.

[_beastie]

It's epidemic. Let's just be perfectly frank here. There is no compunction about dishonesty. Why? Because if it is in the service of God's One True Church, then what does it matter if a little something is left unmentioned or a fact is denied? These guys figure they have no duty to make your trip to the non-faith-promoting conclusion any easier. In fact, if a little obscurantism and misleading will help you not find out what the facts are, all the better!

I'm not saying that all apologists do it, but there are some who do it without qualm. Some of the biggest offenders have been those who deal with Book of Abraham issues. I have had TBM scholar friends with degrees from prestigious universities shake their heads when I have asked them about Book of Abraham apologetics. They simply can't understand how their friends can adopt such apparently disingenuous and disrespectful strategies.

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch and runs off to ask anyone who I am talking about, it probably isn't who you are assuming it is, and I am not naming names. All I can say is that I find it nauseating.

I'm not that familiar with Book of Abraham apologetics, but I would not be surprised if you were correct, and this "sin of omission" is particularly rampant therein. I think that would be due to the reality that Book of Abraham apologia is in a bad way, and I think the apologists know it, even if they bluster and pretend the critics are full of baloney. That's why the one statement of Will's in all this "discussion" that made the most sense was when he said: "we know what's at stake." I think that statement inadvertently revealed the desperate state of Book of Abraham apologia, and even their awareness of that desperate state.

But I've certainly seen it repeatedly in Book of Mormon apologia. The worst, most blatant example was from the "Journey of Faith" DVD about the New World. One of their "experts" - I believe a BYU prof, If I recall correctly - stated that the Lehite party "would have found horses there." If I recall correctly, he supported that by sharing the early evolution of the horse in the Americas. The sin of omission was that he completely neglected to mention that respectable scholars, with the exception of some Mormons, universally accept that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago. Again, all it would have taken to retain a shred of dignity and honesty would have been to insert one sentence recognizing that mainstream science disagrees with his position, but he believes he could successfully defend it. But to simply not mention it????? This is why critics maintain that "lying for the Lord" is alive and well in Zion.

[_Paul Osborne]

I'm not that familiar with Book of Abraham apologetics, but I would not be surprised if you were correct, and this "sin of omission" is particularly rampant therein. I think that would be due to the reality that Book of Abraham apologia is in a bad way, and I think the apologists know it, even if they bluster and pretend the critics are full of baloney. That's why the one statement of Will's in all this "discussion" that made the most sense was when he said: "we know what's at stake." I think that statement inadvertently revealed the desperate state of Book of Abraham apologia, and even their awareness of that desperate state.

Like the part about the ladies posing in Facsimile No. 3 could actually be men dressed up like goddesses. This is one of the most outreageous apologetic stretches ever taken and it bears a lot of ommissions too. I think it was one of Nibley's more dastardly deeds. Even John Gee inserts a sentence of it in his little apologetic book pointing to this idea as if he was in fairy land wishing upon a star with nothing better to suggest. At least William Schryver is willing to see the Facsimile's taken out of canon without shedding a tear. But John Gee is too chicken to say such a thing. And the prophets in Salt Lake City are the biggest wimps on planet earth -- totally sheltered, even from themselves! So William derserves some credit for confessing the not-so-inspired nature of the Facsimiles.

Then there is the question about what to do about the little black slave of Facsimile No. 3. This is a big one. I don't think the critics realize that this issue is the kingpin to attacking the apologists of the Book of Abraham. This is the big sticking point and the one that can really cause havoc for the church. It stirs up racial questions and is still a thorn in the side of the church. Am I the only one around here that understands this? It seems so.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

I think the apologists know it, even if they bluster and pretend the critics are full of baloney. That's why the one statement of Will's in all this "discussion" that made the most sense was when he said: "we know what's at stake." I think that statement inadvertently revealed the desperate state of Book of Abraham apologia, and even their awareness of that desperate state.

At this point, I can only conclude, given all of the things I have seen, that some of these guys are like Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking, with the difference being that they are deeply convicted of the ultimate big "T" truth of the Gospel, and thus feel little compunction about prevaricating concerning some of the little "f" facts.

They start from the Truth of the Gospel and work backward to the assumption that in the end the "facts" must line up with that big Truth. In the meantime, little "p" plausible will have to do, inasmuch as it serves to bolster Truth. At their worst, they will say things that they don't really believe, but that fit the bill for protecting testimonies until that wonderful day (maybe the Second Coming?), when everything will be revealed and show how it worked in the details. They trust that they will be rewarded for their efforts.

The worst, most blatant example was from the "Journey of Faith" DVD about the New World. One of their "experts" - I believe a BYU prof, If I recall correctly - stated that the Lehite party "would have found horses there." If I recall correctly, he supported that by sharing the early evolution of the horse in the Americas. The sin of omission was that he completely neglected to mention that respectable scholars, with the exception of some Mormons, universally accept that the New World horse went extinct 11,000 years ago. Again, all it would have taken to retain a shred of dignity and honesty would have been to insert one sentence recognizing that mainstream science disagrees with his position, but he believes he could successfully defend it. But to simply not mention it????? This is why critics maintain that "lying for the Lord" is alive and well in Zion.

This is an excellent example. But, again, these guys (the ones who engage in these particular antics) probably don't lose much sleep over it. Because they KNOW that the Gospel is true, they assume there must be an explanation that we simply don't know yet. In the meantime they will offer up the best they can muster for the question, and actually see the raising of any disconfirming evidence as contrary to their mission. It is all about supporting the Truth.

So, if you think these guys are playing games, you are probably right. Is there lying by omission? I think so. Is the case misrepresented in various ways? Almost certainly. In fact, I would hardly believe anything that someone like Will Schryver says. It is probably a complete waste of time to converse with guys like that. Why? Because you are not engaging someone who is being straight with you. It is all about the appearance of winning so that the lurking LDS person might be saved from jumping to the "wrong" conclusion.

The end result is that any productive discussion is frustrated by a person whose sole purpose for engaging is to disrupt and to provide a sham appearance of winning the game without even playing it honestly. It is like showing up at the Super Bowl wearing victory rings and talking about how great a game you play, how your competition sucks, and never actually taking the field. Meanwhile, the other team is fuming on the sidelines because they never got to play and they are confident they can win. Anyone with brains is going to see the sham.

[_wenglund]

Pardon me again for interupting this snarl and accusation fest (a most worthy academic endevour to say the least), but I thought it only fair to say that the thread in question was intended as an open invitation for both sides of the issue to speak for themselves and to present their own respective arguments and counter-arguments. At no time did I plan to present an exhaustive account of data thought to be evidence by one or both sides, nor did I plan to present arguments for both sides.

Instead, my approach is quite germane and common and perfectly reasonable form of online discussion, and in no rational universe would it be assumed that by me presenting only my arguments, and evidence in support thereof, rather than also those of my interlocutors, that I would be somehow guilty of the "sin of omission" or the sin of deception or lying, of which I am here implicitly being accused.

But, for those who think such accusations are justified, they may find it interesting to note the irony in Beastie omitting to mention that the quotes from Hullingers 1992 book she has repeatedly posted earlier in the thread, came from two sources. The first was from a book written by William L. Stone, and published in 1832, which contains a number of letters written to John Quincy Adams, starting in Nov. of 1831, regarding Freemasopnry and anti-Masonry. The first quote was contained in the 18th letter, which comprised an ongoing report of the Morgan trials, where a Mr. John Sheldon was one of the defendants who was accused of abducting Morgan. The quote was paraphrase of the testimony given by a Mr. Green, an inn-keeper, who claimed to have witnessed Sheldon in his establishment around the time of the abduction, and who claimed to have seen Sheldon writing a letter presumed to contain "hieroglyphics....addressed to General Solomon Van Rensseler." The letter went on to report other witnesses whose testimonies called into question Green's account.

So, what we have here is third-hand hearsay evidence made by a non-Mason whose testimony was called into question, purporting to have seen Sheldon writing what to Green appeared to be hieroglyphs, and the hieroglyphs were neither said to be Masonic or Egyptian. For all we know, assuming Sheldon had been correctly identified, and had been seen writing a letter, he could have been writing in stenography or shorthand, which was somewhat popular form of writing at the time, though likely unfamiliar to a frontier inn-keeper.

At best, in Green we have a non-Mason and a non-Egyptologist, who had nothing whatsoever to do with Phelps or Joseph or the KEP, assuming the writing in a letter that had nothing to do with Phelps or Joseph or the KEP, was hieroglyphic, and from that Beastie expects us to include, in an argument opposed to her point of view, the so-called FACT "that many nineteenth century Americans believed Masonic elements were Egyptian in origin, as well as the FACT that it is very possible that Joseph Smith thought to himself and then tried to debunk it." And, if this is not included, it is somehow cause to judge me guilty of the sin of omission.

And the good folks here think there is good cause to lament the state of Book of Abraham apologetics. How very funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

There is far more evidence than the book that discussed Joseph Smith in particular to support my contention that it is a FACT that many people in the nineteenth century believed Masonry was connected with ancient Egypt. I shared this citation right before the one you mentioned, way back on, If I recall correctly, page three or four of this thread:

Here's an essay written by Thomas Paine, published in 1818, addressing the common myth that Masonry had ancient origins and connections with ancient Egypt.

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... sonry.html

In 1730, Samuel Pritchard, member of a constituted lodge in England, published a treatise entitled Masonry Dissected; and made oath before the Lord Mayor of London that it was a true copy. "Samuel Pritchard maketh oath that the copy hereunto annexed is a true and genuine copy in every particular." In his work he has given the catechism or examination, in question and answer, of the Apprentices, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason. There was no difficulty in doing this, as it is mere form.

In his introduction he says, "the original institution of Masonry consisted in the foundation of the liberal arts and sciences, but more especially in Geometry, for at the building of the tower of Babel, the art and mystery of Masonry was first introduced, and from thence handed down by Euclid, a worthy and excellent mathematician of the Egyptians; and he communicated it to Hiram, the Master Mason concerned in building Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem."

The learned, but unfortunate Doctor Dodd, Grand Chaplain of Masonry, in his oration at the dedication of Free-Mason's Hall, London, traces Masonry through a variety of stages. Masons, says he, are well informed from their own private and interior records that the building of Solomon's Temple is an important era, from whence they derive many mysteries of their art. "Now (says he,) be it remembered that this great event took place above 1000 years before the Christian era, and consequently more than a century before Homer, the first of the Grecian Poets, wrote; and above five centuries before Pythagoras brought from the east his sublime system of truly masonic instruction to illuminate. our western world. But, remote as this period is, we date not from thence the commencement of our art. For though it might owe to the wise and glorious King of Israel some of its many mystic forms and hieroglyphic ceremonies, yet certainly the art itself is coeval with man, the great subject of it. "We trace," continues he, "its footsteps in the most distant, the most remote ages and nations of the world. We find it among the first and most celebrated civilizers of the East. We deduce it regularly from the first astronomers on the plains of Chaldea, to the wise and mystic kings and priests of Egypt, the sages of Greece, and the philosophers of Rome."

Though the Masons have taken many of their ceremonies and hieroglyphics from the ancient Egyptians, it is certain they have not taken their chronology from thence. If they had, the church would soon have sent them to the stake; as the chronology of the Egyptians, like that of the Chinese, goes many thousand years beyond the Bible chronology.

"The Egyptians," continues Smith, "in the earliest ages constituted a great number of Lodges, but with assiduous care kept their secrets of Masonry from all strangers. These secrets have been imperfectly handed down to us by oral tradition only, and ought to be kept undiscovered to the laborers, craftsmen, and apprentices, till by good behavior and long study they become better acquainted in geometry and the liberal arts, and thereby qualified for Masters and Wardens, which is seldom or never the case with English Masons."

So tell me, Will, were you unaware that Masonry was commonly associated with ancient Egypt - including its hieroglyphs - or were you aware of this problematic information and chose to ignore it, realizing how damaging it is to your theory?

Now if it were not a common believe of the nineteenth century, why would Thomas Paine write an essay addressing it?

[_Kishkumen]

Pardon me again for interupting this snarl and accusation fest (a most worthy academic endevour to say the least), but I thought it only fair to say that the thread in question was intended as an open invitation for both sides of the issue to speak for themselves and to present their own respective arguments and counter-arguments. At no time did I plan to present an exhaustive account of data thought to be evidence by one or both sides, nor did I plan to present arguments for both sides.

Snarl and accusation fest? Don't take it personally, wade. My comments were not directed at you. I do, however, think it is altogether appropriate to consider to what extent different parties in the conversation are actually interested in the facts. I can tell you that you were not on my mind when I raised that issue.

But, for those who think such accusations are justified, they may find it interesting to note the irony in Beastie omitting to mention that the quotes from Hullingers 1992 book she has repeatedly posted earlier in the thread, came from two sources...

Interesting. At the same time, whether the case in this particular instance is rock solid or not, the identification of Masonic symbols with hieroglyphics is not restricted to this one example. What matters is how prevalent the view was, not whether one example is absolutely provable. Rather than isolate and question one case, I would say it would be more appropriate to weigh it in the context of other examples.

And the good folks here think there is good cause to lament the state of Book of Abraham apologetics. How very funny.

Yes, there are lots of good folks here. Thanks for noticing. I personally don't care about the state of Book of Abraham apologetics. I do lament some of the behavior that people have engaged in as they have pursued the defense of the Book of Abraham. I think it is counterproductive, obfuscatory, and disingenuous. Those who are truly interested in what likely happened in 1835, and honestly want others to understand it too, will not seek to obfuscate the matter for others.

If you don't think there is a highly-placed attitude about history not being all that important, then I don't know what to tell you. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I don't agree with that philosophy, no matter who is promoting it, and I have no qualms about sharing my opinion. I think hiding and obfuscating do more damage than good.

Mind you, I have never accused you of doing this. Indeed, I did not name names. So, try not to misconstrue my words as a blanket condemnation of all apologists and apologetics in general. I do think, however, that Book of Abraham apologetics could stand improvement. I consider David Bokovoy's approach to these kinds of issues to be far healthier.