KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_wenglund]

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.

Ignoring for the moment your transparent evasion of my earlier reasonable questions. May I just say that, while the historical record is clear that many a critic has argued that the KEP was intended as a key (modus operandi) to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri, and Chris Smith's recent JWHA paper argues that at least portions of the GAEL were the "modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham translation", I am willing to accept that people here may argue differently. I understand that Vogel argues that the KEP were simply a prop, but for what purpose is anyone's guess. And, from what I gather from Beastie, she theorizes that they were intended as a sort of Rosetta Stone.

So, at the risk of having even more questions unreasonably dismissed and deflected, let me specifically ask:

What do you, personally, and other critics here, believe was the intended purpose of the KEP--if not to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?

Are we to conclude that while some critics view the KEP as the modus operandi for translating at least some portion of the Book of Abraham, that the KEP were not intended for that purpose, but for something else?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Ignoring for the moment your transparent evasion of my earlier reasonable questions.

Which were ignored because they presumed I accepted a premise I did not. So your choice of words here ("evasion") is just deceptive rhetoric that you are using to evade the fact that you cannot name a single person on this forum who has argued what you claim is being argued.

May I just say that, while the historical record is clear that many a critic has argued that the KEP was intended as a key (modus operandi) to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri, and Chris Smith's recent JWHA paper argues that at least portions of the GAEL were the "modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham translation"

Yes, and Chris has explained what he meant by thaat, and narrows this description to a few verses alone. Whereas you and Wilbur are pretending someone on our side has argued that the entire Book of Abraham derived from the GAEL. It proves once again you aren't up to speed.

I am willing to accept that people here may argue differently

I didn't ask you to accept this, I asked you to provide a single person here who has argued for it and so far you can't name a single person.

. I understand that Vogel argues that the KEP were simply a prop, but for what purpose is anyone's guess. And, from what I gather from Beastie, she theorizes that they were intended as a sort of Rosetta Stone.

That's nice. Now, if you're done with the evasive rhetoric, can you please provide the name of someone who has ever argued the GAEL was used to translate the Book of Abraham?

So, at the risk of having even more questions unreasonably dismissed and deflected, let me specifically ask:

Referring to your idiotic questions as "reasonable" is a sign of aa lack of confidence in them. You are not confident that they will appear reasonable on their faces.

What do you, personally, and other critics here, believe was the intended purpose of the KEP--if not to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?

The purpose of the translation manuscripts had no specific purpose, they just represented the dictated and subsequently, copied portions of the original translation. The Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar's purpose was exactly as Joseph Smith said. He wanted to create an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer. Mystery solved. This is what he said he was doing, and there is no reason to twist it into some fantastical, convoluted "enciphering" project that hasn't a shred of historical evidence to support it, and in fact flies in the face of common sense.

But nice evasion. Canyou provide us a list of say three... scraatch that, ONE person on this forum who has argued the A&G was used to translate the Book of ABraham?

Are we to conclude that while some critics view the KEP as the modus operandi for translating at least some portion of the Book of Abraham, that the KEP were not intended for that purpose, but for something else?

I think you need to ask Chris to clarify what he meant when he used that terminology. I doubt anyone here doubts that the English translations came from Joseph Smith's mind ("revelation" to LDS). God granted him revelation to translate the papyrus, but not to translate the entire Egyptian language, including its alphabet and grammar, so he had to work with what he had already translated and reverse engineer it to produce the A&G. This is what Nibley and others suggested and I think it is the most reasonable postion to take given the evidence. You reject it because it is "old." That is a dumb reason to accept newer ideas, simply because they are new.

Abr 1:3 required special attention because both the English treanslation and the Egyptian characters had to be divined from "revelation." So I don't think it is a coincidence that this portion receives special attention in the A&G.

[_CaliforniaKid]

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.

Wait... what?

[_sock puppet]

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-

In fine tautological fashion, Kishkumen is Kishkumen. He is the authority on what he means. You, Wade, are curious in the aspect of Kishkumen's thinking as to the literalist approach Kishkumen says apologists have taken and thereby driven many TBMs right out of their beliefs (and now in retrospect claim literalist are fundamentalists).

I am more interested in those aspects of Kishkumen's thinking that are touched upon by the questions posed to him here.

However, back to your inquiry about Kishkumen and the apologetic misstep, which I attribute to the Church as teaching a literalist approach to accepting and believing what Joseph Smith wrote and claimed he had been doing--translating Egyptian characters appearing on the papyri into English Text, indeed into the BoAbr.

Kishkumen's focus and mine are not incompatible. He seems more focused on the apologists' misstep, while I think the root of that literalism is the Church itself and the apologists have been obligated to it until they have dangerously begun to detach from that literalism, as witnessed by proclaiming the narrative values, not the historicity, of the Book of Mormon. By dangerously, I mean that they are now relying more on their own analysis and thinking than on what the Church writes very clearly in the introductory passage for the BoAbr, explaining how it came to be:

Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith. A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351.

The apologists now tell us the handwriting upon the papyrus was not Abraham's, because the papyrus and its characters and facsimiles are not old enough to have been written by Abraham.

The apologists now tell us that Joseph Smith did not translate this "from the Papyrus", but it was received as a revelation from God and had nothing to do with the characters, because Egyptologists explain that it does not translate, it is the Breathing Permit of Hor, not an account of Abraham.

I do not think the BoAbr has a valid claim to historicity. I do not think that the papyrus includes the BoAbr at all, much less that the papyrus Joseph Smith bought from Chandler in 1835 bore the handwriting of Abraham. I do not think God planted the story of Abraham in Joseph Smith's head as 'inspiration' or 'translation' or anything involving God or the supernatural at all. I think that when Joseph Smith read, such as the Book of Genesis in the Bible, he was imaginative and extrapolated from what he read. I think that the BoAbr is a concoction of that imagination. Unlike the historian, my concern is much less whether Joseph Smith was self-delusional or a deliberate fraud--although there seems to be ample evidence for either. The 'sacred text' value to Mormon believers of the BoAbr bears the same relationship and value that heroin has for the addict.

As noted, Kishkumen, the historian that he is, sees it much less delineated than do I. There is a time and place function in his analysis, and I hope that he will explore that more in a declarative statement, rather than simply alluding to possibilities while taking exception to what others on the believing or non-believing side of the chasm state.

[Guest]

I don't want to detract from Wade's fascination with the Egyptian Counting document, but I think Mortal Man has put forth a very compelling explanation of the translation manuscripts over on MAD, complete with an explanation of the dittograph.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... d-scrolls/

Will's response is classic apologetics. Will summarized: "we can't possibly know what exactly was being translated when the History of the Church refers to Joseph translating for days on end." If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, then it is a . . . (Will: it is impossible to really know).

[_wenglund]

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..

Yet, here are some quotes from Kevin I found on this very thread just in the last several days:

"…we know that Abr 1:1-3 came from characters that were given speciaal attention in the GAEL" Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:35 am

"But virtually everything we know from history tells us that the extant papyri were used in translating the Book of Abraham, making the missing roll theory highly improbable. " Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:31 pm

"For example, the smoking gun found in Abr 1:12, which pretty much solidifies the fact that the Sensen text was used to translate the Book of Abraham." Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:13 pm

"Of course Joseph Smith was the one behind the Egyptian Counting document. Any attempt to translate an otherwise unknown language was the duty of the Prophet who had the keys to do so. " Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:11 am

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Nomad]

Having been provided with significant portions of the products of Schryver’s KEP research to date (under a vow of strict non-disclosure, naturally) I am quickly getting “up to speed” on the text critical nuances of these very interesting documents.

One thing that is very obvious at this point is that people on the both sides of the controversy have seriously underestimated the academic rigor that Schryver has applied to his analysis. Like I’ve mentioned before, I did some undergraduate studies in textual criticism, so I’m not entirely ignorant when it comes to that topic. Plus, I have recently taken the opportunity of getting some of the more recent publications, in order to re-acquaint myself with the methodologies. It has been very enjoyable for me and it proves that one is never to old to expand knowledge.

Anywho … as I said, I think people (including me, I confess) have seriously underestimated the scholarly underpinnings of Schryver’s work, and I really look forward to seeing his detailed stuff get published so that it will be seen that not only are the arguments sound from a logical standpoint, but that the data is there to prove the arguments he has made, in particular the dependence of the EAG stuff on an already translated Book of Abraham. I can’t imagine that anyone will even try to argue against that conclusion after all the evidence is available for consideration.

The other thing that is becoming more and more obvious as I look into this stuff more seriously is that Brent Metcalf and Christopher Smith (the supposed “scholars” of these things among Mormon critics) are not even in the same league when it comes to familiarity with the KEP. At least I haven’t seen anything from them that indicates they know anywhere near as much about the KEP manuscripts as Schryver does. In fact, I wonder what documents they have even been looking at to reach some of the bizarre conclusions they talk about! Smith’s John Witmer paper is a prime example of this. I can’t believe the editors of that journal just closed their eyes to all of the obvious problems (problems that are obvious even if you know nothing about the KEP or text-criticism). It makes you wonder about their agenda. Is the JWHA starting to become a mouthpiece for anti-Mormon propaganda, just like Sunstone has been for years?

As for this Graham guy-well he’s good for a few laughs. But I’ve started to think that he’s not altogether sane. Seriously. Not to mention how little he knows about the KEP, he strikes me as someone who is capable of really nutso behavior. Makes me wonder if maybe he’s dealing with other issues in his life that are really at the root of some of his bizarre behavior, kind of like Osborn and his obvious problems with substance abuse.

As for Graham’s posts on this message board, it’s like he’s got a dozen or so different canned posts he chooses from, and mixes and matches to respond to anything an apologist says. But he has shown no signs at all of really understanding any of this stuff on his own.

OK, that’s my 2 cents for the week. Y’all have a nice holiday. Keep up the good work, Wade. I hope you don’t mind that William sent me some of your cipher research stuff. Very interesting. Sure looks like people were really into that kind of thing back at that time period, huh? I won’t be surprised if we continue to find more historical evidence in church history sources about this kind of thing going on.

[_Nomad]

I don't want to detract from Wade's fascination with the Egyptian Counting document, but I think Mortal Man has put forth a very compelling explanation of the translation manuscripts over on MAD, complete with an explanation of the dittograph.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... d-scrolls/

Will's response is classic apologetics. Will summarized: "we can't possibly know what exactly was being translated when the History of the Church refers to Joseph translating for days on end." If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, then it is a . . . (Will: it is impossible to really know).

Schryver's point is well-taken. There is obviously a difference between translating facsimiles and translating the Book of Abraham. Or translating stuff from the Book of Joseph. The HOC doesn't ever say what was being translated at any given time, and there are lots of different translated things to choose from when attempting to assign a particular translation session to a particular text.

Once again, it is demonstrated that exmormons are not capable of objective analysis when it comes to questions like this.

[Gadianton]

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.

Wait... what?

I thought it was obvious, but perhaps I should have specified that I am referring to Ancient or Middle Egyptian (which, after evolving to coptic, it became virtually extinct, or was no longer spoken, by the 17th century--see here). "

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

Having been provided with significant portions of the products of Schryver’s KEP research to date (under a vow of strict non-disclosure, naturally) I am quickly getting “up to speed” on the text critical nuances of these very interesting documents.

One thing that is very obvious at this point is that people on the both sides of the controversy have seriously underestimated the academic rigor that Schryver has applied to his analysis. Like I’ve mentioned before, I did some undergraduate studies in textual criticism, so I’m not entirely ignorant when it comes to that topic. Plus, I have recently taken the opportunity of getting some of the more recent publications, in order to re-acquaint myself with the methodologies. It has been very enjoyable for me and it proves that one is never to old to expand knowledge.

Anywho … as I said, I think people (including me, I confess) have seriously underestimated the scholarly underpinnings of Schryver’s work, and I really look forward to seeing his detailed stuff get published so that it will be seen that not only are the arguments sound from a logical standpoint, but that the data is there to prove the arguments he has made, in particular the dependence of the EAG stuff on an already translated Book of Abraham. I can’t imagine that anyone will even try to argue against that conclusion after all the evidence is available for consideration.

The other thing that is becoming more and more obvious as I look into this stuff more seriously is that Brent Metcalf and Christopher Smith (the supposed “scholars” of these things among Mormon critics) are not even in the same league when it comes to familiarity with the KEP. At least I haven’t seen anything from them that indicates they know anywhere near as much about the KEP manuscripts as Schryver does. In fact, I wonder what documents they have even been looking at to reach some of the bizarre conclusions they talk about! Smith’s John Witmer paper is a prime example of this. I can’t believe the editors of that journal just closed their eyes to all of the obvious problems (problems that are obvious even if you know nothing about the KEP or text-criticism). It makes you wonder about their agenda. Is the JWHA starting to become a mouthpiece for anti-Mormon propaganda, just like Sunstone has been for years?

As for this Graham guy-well he’s good for a few laughs. But I’ve started to think that he’s not altogether sane. Seriously. Not to mention how little he knows about the KEP, he strikes me as someone who is capable of really nutso behavior. Makes me wonder if maybe he’s dealing with other issues in his life that are really at the root of some of his bizarre behavior, kind of like Osborn and his obvious problems with substance abuse.

Did your Master's threat of violence directed at Dr. Shades strike you as nutso? Did it hurt your feelings when your Master said that you didn't understand what was going on with that meaningless "challenge" you issued?

As for Graham’s posts on this message board, it’s like he’s got a dozen or so different canned posts he chooses from, and mixes and matches to respond to anything an apologist says. But he has shown no signs at all of really understanding any of this stuff on his own.

Since you are so conversant in all of this, Nomad, and since I'm going along with your request to acknowledge that you are Fratello Schryver's lap dog and not Fratello Schryver himself (which I totally believe), I wonder if you could articulate what objective standards and methodolgy Fratello Schryver used, and how he came up with these objective standards and methods.

OK, that’s my 2 cents for the week. Y’all have a nice holiday. Keep up the good work, Wade. I hope you don’t mind that William sent me some of your cipher research stuff. Very interesting. Sure looks like people were really into that kind of thing back at that time period, huh?

Let us review some of the pertinent Articles of Faith of Mormon Apologetics:

2. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This means that we can assume whatever we need to be true to be actually true or very probably true, and why critics of the Church cannot rely on the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever as a valid inference that something does not exist.

7. If you can create a chain of suppositions and assumptions in a way that might theoretically be somehow possible, the question has been conclusively answered.

8. People who point out flaws in apologetic theories are anti-Mormons and enemies of the Church. People who shred the teachings of Church leaders and/or completely ignore them to make the evidence fit the theory are defenders of the Church.

9. If you can find any parallel at all between an alleged group of ancient people and a real group of ancient people, no matter how distant or unrelated the parallel and the two groups, you can claim to have shown circumstantial evidence that the alleged ancient group of people really existed without needing to show any evidence that the alleged ancient group and the real ancient group ever actually interacted with each other.

11. We believe that the scribes and companions of Joseph Smith and other early church leaders are accurate sources of history, except for when they wrote things down wrong or put words in their mouths, depending on whatever is expedient for the argument we are currently making.

12. The plain, obvious meaning of the words someone said are not a reliable indication of what they meant.

I won’t be surprised if we continue to find more historical evidence in church history sources about this kind of thing going on.

Oh, yes! You never know! Maybe they'll find an affidavit or something!