Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_Kevin Graham]

For years the standard apologetic line was to argue that "translation" for Joseph Smith was far more nuanced and abstract than the critics were willing to admit. Our idea of a mechanical word for word translation was rejected by the apologists because Joseph Smith translated documents with no preexisting text at all (JST). This was how they planned to get around the hurdles facing them with the Facsimile translations. For others, it would be the response to the critical viewpoint on the KEP evidence.

Now suddenly the tables have turned. Mak rejects Chris' dependence theory based on the fact that an exact, word for word, tit for tat translation is not what we find in the documents. Although the vast majority of Abr 1:1-3 is clearly represented by the three characters to the side, there are a couple other ideas and concepts meshed in with the text. So that throws out the baby with the bathwater?

Really?

[_beefcalf]

This is one of the reasons why I have chosen to cease any attempts to dialogue with people on this board. With the exception of Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe, no one else has the requisite understanding of the documents in order to carry on an intelligent and worthwhile conversation. Of course, that doesn't stop people from attempting to talk about this stuff, and doing so with an undercurrent of confidence that they really do have a grasp of the material. But they simply don't.

I've seen you mention on a number of occasions the benefit you've gain from having access to the high-quality scans of the various KEP documents. If your theory and conclusions are correct, wouldn't similar access to these documents, and independent analysis of them, by other researchers tend to bolster your findings?

In the interest of leveling the playing field and stifling criticism, wouldn't the LDS Church's best option be to make these hi-res scans available to any and all interested parties?

It seems a bit disingenuous that you would make specific note of the benefits of having access to the documents, then disparage a group of people (who do not have access to those documents) for not knowing enough about them.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is one of the reasons why I have chosen to cease any attempts to dialogue with people on this board. With the exception of Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe, no one else has the requisite understanding of the documents in order to carry on an intelligent and worthwhile conversation. Of course, that doesn't stop people from attempting to talk about this stuff, and doing so with an undercurrent of confidence that they really do have a grasp of the material. But they simply don't.

Lol!

Will thinks he can compensate for his inability to respond to my dozens of refutations presented on this forum by trying to offer back handed statements like this. If it weren't for me, the guy who educated Will on all this stuff four years ago, Will would be thinking the Papyri and the KEP were synonymous. He won't engage me because he can't. Does anyone who knows Will really believe he wouldn't if he could? Of course he would. He picks his battles caarefully though, which is why he never picks one over here. He's never debated Chris or Metcalfe on any of this stuff, so who does he think he is kidding?

I've already proved Will misrepresented the KEP in his presentation, and now he is just pissed at me. Oh well.

[_William Schryver]

I don’t quite know what it is about self-delusion run amok that so compellingly attracts the gaze of even the most disinterested passersby, but watching Kevin Graham spiral down into the depths of his own disordered delusions of triumph now finds me perilously close to crossing the line from amusement to pity.

Even so, I can’t help but review in my own mind the twists and turns of the past four years since I first became involved in the online discussion of Book of Abraham-related issues. Over the course of that time, I have engaged in numerous debates with Metcalfe, Vogel, and Smith, and watch Paul Osborne and Kevin Graham slide into the abyss of a pride-fueled and rage-filled apostasy. Those two I have ignored, for the most part, for the simple reason that … well, they’re nuts—something everyone here recognizes, but is willing to overlook when they think it serves the greater good of the cause of anti-Mormonism.

In any case, I did a quick mental review of the most significant of the arguments and findings I have made over the years. I think it might be appropriate to list some of those findings that now enjoy greater confirmation than ever before, having been subjected to the test of time and the careful scrutiny of experts qualified to confirm or reject them.

So, in more or less chronological order:

• I observed, assembled a body of evidence, and argued that Ab1(Phelps)—the passage of Abr. 1:1-3 about which Dan McClellan has been speaking the past week—attests text critical evidence of having been visually copied from an earlier document.
  
  This finding has been repeatedly confirmed by trained text critics who have assessed it.
  `
• I observed, assembled a body of evidence, and argued that the overwhelming majority of the emendations in Ab2(Williams) and Ab3(Parrish) are secondary, rather than being so-called “in-line” corrections made during the course of a dictation session.
  
  This finding has been repeatedly confirmed by trained text critics who have assessed it.
  `
• I observed, assembled a body of evidence, and argued that Ab2(Williams) attested a text-book case of dittography—a visual copying error—on page 4, thus confirming the hypothesis that the document in question is a copy of an earlier document, rather than a transcript of a dictation session.
  
  This finding has been repeatedly confirmed by trained text critics who have assessed it.
  `
• I observed, assembled a body of evidence, and argued that the phrase “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record” at Abr. 1:12 in Ab2(Williams) is, in fact, a secondary, inter-linear insertion.
  
  This finding has been repeatedly confirmed by trained text critics who have assessed it, as well as one of the foremost forensic document analysts in the country.
  `
• I observed, assembled a body of evidence, and have now argued that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.
  
  This finding has now been repeatedly confirmed by trained text critics who have assessed it.

My thesis of the Alphabet and Grammar as a species of ideographic cipher and lexicon is now being assessed, and the initial returns are universally favorable. More work remains to be done, but I am confident that the underlying premise of the thesis is correct and that it will yet be confirmed by a growing consensus of those qualified to speak to the subject matter.

All in all, it is a rather remarkable track record, if I don’t say so myself, especially considering how consistently and universally my findings and I have been disparaged and summarily rejected by the “wise in their own eyes” who make their home here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

Is it any wonder that I now consider the derision and rejection of the people here as the surest indicator of the correctness of anything I propose?

So I want to thank you all for being the one constant amid the changing winds and varying tides of the ongoing Book of Abraham controversy. Armed with the established principle that you summarily reject only that which is ultimately proven true has permitted me to confidently put my theories and findings to the test here, knowing that your rejection is a sure guarantee of eventual vindication.

-WS

[_maklelan]

Again, homoioteleuton is dependent on the premise that these men were copying manuscripts, and that the copy must have been in error. That's two unestablished assumptions that weakens the theory.

This is circular. You can't assert that my evidence for conclusion X is invalid because I first have to prove conclusion X.

You ask why he would intentionally copy it but I already explained. Joseph Smith felt it was important to have two copies of the text.

But wanting two copies of the text on the same sheet of paper is kinda silly. I don't see how that serves as any kind of explanation.

This is why he hired two different scribes:

IMAGE

The end result was two copies of the dictated text. Now I propose that Joseph Smith wanted two copies of dictated text, and so before you critique this theory, please consider the alternative, which goes like this. Since it is argued that these are merely copies, Will and Hauglid proposed that Joseph Smith, for whatever weird reason, decided he wanted to hire two scribes to "copy" an error-ridden text of just a few pages. But it gets even more ludicrous. Not only does Joseph Smith want two copies of an error-ridden text, but his scribes, as experienced and well paid as they are, couldn't manage to copy properly. We know this is true because in several instances they misspelled words differently. So Joseph Smith decided he wanted them to copy a manuscript down to its exact scribble and cross-out, but felt it was acceptable to completely misspell words? This is beyond unlikely... but I digress.

In short, your scenario doesn't explain why no Egyptian character was placed before its corresponding translation. Your proposed scenario doesn't explain why he suddenly decided to disregard the margin altogether. These are abrupt shifts in the flow of the transcription that demand explanation.

Which I will get to. At this point my argument is that portions were dictated and portions were transcribed. The fact that there is homoioteleuton only adds support to the conclusion that at least portions were transcribed. The textual evidence takes priority over arriving at conclusions about why it happened.

Additionally, what happened to the rest of chapter 2? Where's the next page? The page we have ends with about a third of v. 6. It clearly went on to another page.

Also, your proposed scenario doesn't explain how a professional scribe would copy 90 words by accident, before realizing what he was doing.

Happens all the time in ancient texts. Early 19th century scribes were no less prone to error (although their craft was far, far less common). Additionally, there's no indication that I've seen that he did realize what he was doing.

Homoioteleuton usually occurs when a scribe's eye scans the wrong line while copying another page after long hours of writing many pages of text.

It can happen at any time, but it is technically skipping words or repeating words as the result of a word or line of text that ends the same way as another. Since "Haran" ended the line, and the next line began with previously transcribed text that immediately followed the word "Haran," homoioteleuton is quite clearly what happened.

But what we find here would require a professional scribe to scan over roughly a half page of text going into his four page. Highly unlikely in my view.

And if he left the text for any extended period of time then it's no surprise at all.

My proposed scenario explains all of these things and accounts for a dozen other pieces of evidence that strongly suggest a simultaneous transcription via dictation.

No, it does not explain why the scribe would want to recopy the text on that page. Wanting two separate copies of a text is one thing. Wanting two copies of a text on the same piece of paper is bizarre. You've not explained why homoioteleuton is the less likely occurrence. You've only asserted it based on rather myopic scenarios. I've also not seen close to a dozen other pieces of evidence that the entire collection of translation manuscripts was dictated. In fact, I've yet to see one piece of evidence that precludes transcription in parts of the manuscripts.

You know, stuff like the two scribes making the same exact mistakes, or misspelling words different (words that happen to be difficult to discern audibly). The copyist theorists have failed to produce valid explanations for these or any of the other textual anomalies that have been addressed.

You seem to have missed where I stated that there is evidence in some places for dictation and in others for transcription. If a "copy theorist" is one that needs to explain away evidence for dictation then I'm not a copy theorist. Given that fact, who are you addressing?

Right, that's the one. We've always maintained that that portion of the text was copied. We also acknowledge that everything after Abr 1:1-3 in Ms2, was also copied.

I don't believe that I've taken issue with the notion that multiple copies were made.

Well, aside from the photo I already presented, we also have instances where the text ends with an Egyptian character with no corresponding English translation. In fact, the document we're discussing (Ms1b), which was transcriped by Parrish (not Phelps) ends with an Egyptian character that is supposed to have, consistent with the other manuscripts, at least 90 corresponding words of translated English.

But my concern is for Abr 1:1-3. I can see that the phrases that were putatively translated begin and end in discreet textual units that correspond with the characters in the margin. The fact that those characters after Abr 1:3 have nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the EAG aside, why is Abr 1:1-3 so distinct?

So I think this pretty much kills the argument that the English was written before the Egyptian; in this case the English wasn't written at all!

That statement was in regards to Abr 1:1-3.

Now John Gee tried to undermine this argument by saying the Egyptian characters sometimes "overrun" the margin as well as the English text, therefore some person came along latter and added the wrong Egyptian characters. The example he used was this one:

IMAGE

In this example the margin was drawn in before realizing it would not be enough space to contain this particular character, so the Egyptian character overlapped the margin a bit, but the English text, if it were already there, would have certainly been in the way. But it wasn't, so the scribe began the sentence with enough of a space cushion between them.[=/quote]

I'm not interested in that theory.

Ok, well your proposed homoioteleuton is well in to chapter two. You knew this, right?

Yes. I'm discussing why portions appear to have been transcribed while other portions appear to have been dictated. Abr 1:1-3 and the homoioteleuton at Abr 2:2 are clear instances where the evidence does not support dictation.

Maybe, but we still know that Abr 3 wasn't translated until seven years later.

No, we don't know that. We know it wasn't published until seven years later, but you beg the question to insist we know it wasn't published until then.

In 1842 Joseph Smith published the first installment of the Book of Abraham, and it went from Abr 1:1-Abr 2:18, precisely where Phelp's Ms2 ended in 1835!

Any number of circumstances could lead to that scenario.

Joseph Smith then makes an announcement that he would begin translation for the next installment, which consisted of 2:19 and beyond. This Trump's whatever word count analyses Will has in store for us.

Can you provide a quote for this announcement that he would begin translating Abr 2:19 and beyond?

Now I know Will says he's aware of this evidence, but in four years he has yet to explain how this dovetails with his theory that Abr 1-3 was translated within the first couple of weeks after the papyri were purchased. This isn't assertion via evidence, it is assertion despite evidence.

Well, can you make sense of it within Will's copyist theory? Because neither he nor Hauglid were able to.

I'm not working within Will's theory. I'm working with my own theory, and at this point my analysis has revolved around the first three verses, and, up to this point, the data I've gathered is pretty conclusive. I'm beginning to dabble in the translation manuscripts, and I see the data pointing between the two extremes espoused by the two camps, but there's still a lot left to do.

But we know this translated text has a corresponding character. We know this. It is manifest in all the manuscripts.

But that character is entirely unrelated to anything in the EAG, is it not? It seems to me that, based on the available evidence, the characters were arbitrarily assigned sections of text.

He doesn't decide to go into the margin until after he begins to copy it. This suggests that he was trying to cram what was left for that day's session, on that sheet.

But he goes over that sheet on the two occasions I've seen so far, and in one he continues to write to the edge of the paper on the beginning of the next sheet.

True. But this presupposes a preexistent copy that looks identical to this one.

It hypothesizes one until the data points either to dictation or transcription. I'm just responding to your points at this stage.

It seems more likely to me that once a scribe realized that the majority of a page was a mistake, that he'd throw it away and start again on another sheet. Especially if Joseph Smith wanted precision as the copyist theory must assume.

Unless he didn't realize it was a mistake. In my estimation, that makes much more sense than assuming Smith wanted two copies of this section of text on the same sheet of paper.

If it were dictation, then the Prophet would more than likely tell them to add the next character as he finished translating the previous one.

So do we have any examples of the writing that goes the edge ending immediately before an Egyptian character pops up in the margin?

Of course it is.

No, it isn't. "These were professionals" wouldn't fly in any corner of the academy, and that's not up for debate. You can make assertions all you want about this specific historical context, but this is my profession and that is not a legitimate text-critical standard. It's an ad hoc guess.

You can't say something is X without providing a reasonable basis for X to exist.

And that's been provided. All that has to have happened is any extended period away from the text. The textual evidence for homoioteleuton is quite clear. It is absolutely without question the first possibility that would be explored in this case, and in this case there's no reason to doubt it. Absolutely all the signs point to it. Haran is at the end of a line. Haran is also listed previously in the text at the end of another line. Homoioteleuton means "similar ending." It's when a scribe skips backward or forward in a text because he accidentally begins from the wrong section because the end of the line or word looks the same. The text is taken back up following the first line-terminating occurrence of Haran. This is an absolutely textbook case of homoioteleuton.

Skipping over 90+ words is not likely.

Actually it very much is likely. All he had to do was be away from the text for an extended period of time and return to it, look at where he left of with "Haran" and start scanning down the parent text until he found "Haran."

How many examples can you find of professional scribes engaging in a "copying" project of only a few pages(!), and then shortly into the project one of them skips over half a page!?

The parameters you're setting are irrelevant. It can happen anytime, whether a scribe leaves a text or not. It's much more frequent when they do leave texts, though.

Well, that's because you haven't fully absorbed the manuscripts and understood the evidences that undermine the copyist scenario.

We'll see if my conclusions changes after I've had a chance to look over all the manuscripts. I can't imagine how a fuller context could possibly weaken the signs that this is homoioteleuton.

Once it becomes clear that a copyist scenario was most certainly not acceptable, the homoioteleuton gets thrown out the window too.

I don't see any evidence that undermines the notion that this section of text was transcribed, and no amount of evidence from the rest of the manuscript can legitimately be brought to bear on this section without internal evidence of its own. It's specious reasoning to conclude that evidence for dictation in one section constitutes evidence for dictation in all sections.

I've already provided an explanation,

Your explanation only brings up the need for another explanation: what good are two copies of the same text on the same sheet of paper? Another thing to consider is that the repeated text does not carry an Egyptian character in the margins, as it does the first time it is copied down. Not only does that undermine the notion that Smith wanted the entire text copied down twice to take the place of the other scribe's work, but it indicates the text Williams was copying from did not have Egyptian characters on it. Your explanation does not hold.

and until you can explain why my explanation is no better than the one accompanying the copyist theory (and yes, if you insist on the homoioteleuton then you have to own and explain the other arguments too) we must dispense with the homoioteleuton notion.

I've explained exactly that, and you're still ignoring the fact that dictation in one or even many places does not mean dictation in all places. You're trying to say it's all or nothing, and that's just not how this kind of process works.

There is simply nothing "textbook" about this example unless you first assume what hasn't been established,

This is circular reasoning (again). You can't assert that my evidence for conclusion X is illegitimate because I have to first prove conclusion X.

and if you want to argue otherwise, then please provide just one example similar to this. I mean if its truly textbook, then this should be easy to do. Right?

Well, it's a unique situation, since the most common examples of homoioteleuton come from biblical texts which are shortened as a result of the scribes skipping down. Back then they also counted how many words were in each line, on each page, and in each document, in order to ensure accuracy. Skipping up is indicative of less methodical work, and it is a phenomenon that hasn't been studied much in the criticism of modern period texts. I know I've seen examples of very lengthy homoioteleuton, but not in any books I have on me. I'll poke around, but this is hardly something that demands a precedent. Like I said previously, you let me know when you find a trained textual critic that doesn't think this is a textbook case of homoioteleuton.

[_beastie]

It's interesting to watch the enthusiasm of defenders of the faith on this issue. Do they really imagine this is going to 'save' the Book of Abraham in some way?

I keep comparing this to the polyandry issue, because it's so apt. When a believer first finds out that Joseph Smith married other mens' wives, that believer will turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "no, Joseph Smith did not marry other mens' wives." Period. Full stop. Instead they're treated to debates about whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with the other mens' wives that he married.

Likewise, on this issue, when a believer first finds out that the papyri don't match the Book of Abraham, they turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "Yes, the papyri match the Book of Abraham!" Period. Full stop. Instead, they're treated to debates about the chronology of the KEP.

You people involved in this have lost perspective. This is a minor issue of an interest to a handful of people who have studied the documents for years. It's not going to make one whit of difference to the vast majority of believers troubled by the Book of Abraham. Why? Because the end game is this: Joseph Smith didn't even use the papyri to "translate" the Book of Abraham, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't match. Likewise with the Book of Mormon. After being taught by the LDS church that Joseph Smith "translated" ancient documents through the power of God, this is only going to appease a very small number of troubled believers - namely those so deeply invested in the church that nothing, literally nothing, could alter their belief.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

You people involved in this have lost perspective.

No, we haven’t. We understand precisely what is at stake. If anyone has lost perspective, it is people like Metcalfe, Vogel, and Smith who, notwithstanding the fact that they simply cannot prevail on the issue of the dependency of the A&G to the Book of Abraham, are nonetheless committed to resisting it to the end—the “end” referring to their credibility as authorities on this topic.

They are resolved to fight this hopeless battle despite the fact that establishing the chronology of the production of the Book of Abraham and the KEP does not, as you have well-noted, do anything to establish the antiquity of the Book of Abraham; whether it was translated correctly from Egyptian, etc. I freely acknowledge that. I have done so since even before my presentation on August 6th. But the critics are so loathe to lose this one point that they will continue to make themselves look ridiculous for weeks, months, and possibly even years to come.

This is a minor issue of an interest to a handful of people who have studied the documents for years. It's not going to make one whit of difference to the vast majority of believers troubled by the Book of Abraham.

Here you quite obviously misstate the reality of the situation. It is clear, based on the treatment of this story in the Deseret News, that its significance is appreciated by more of the rank and file than you are inclined to believe. I was pleasantly surprised to learn, during the course of our several conversations, how familiar Michael DeGroote (DN reporter) was with the details of the Book of Abraham controversy.

Nothwithstanding the charges of “apostasy” leveled at me by certain members of this message board community, on account of my averring that Joseph Smith did not perform any sort of “academic translation” of the papyri, but rather received the Book of Abraham via revelation, the believing Latter-day Saint both accepts and understands my proposed thesis as the logical explanation of what happened back in 1835. It fits the precedent established by Joseph Smith in his previous translations. It is, in short, a faith-promoting discovery whose strength and explanatory power derives from its being based in truth—in the abundant evidence I have marshalled to support it.

… this is only going to appease a very small number of troubled believers - namely those so deeply invested in the church that nothing, literally nothing, could alter their belief.

Again, your assessment of the situation (as well as your general understanding of the nature of the faith of the Saints) is distorted by your own prejudices and blindspots. That my discoveries have almost immediately found a broad, receptive, and understanding audience, both among the rank and file as well as the leadership of the church, is an observable fact. At the same time, no one, least of all me, is surprised at the reaction from the contingent of apostate critics. Two-dimensional thinking is notoriously predictable.

[_beastie]

beastlie:

You people involved in this have lost perspective.

No, we haven’t. We understand precisely what is at stake. If anyone has lost perspective, it is people like Metcalfe, Vogel, and Smith who, notwithstanding the fact that they simply cannot prevail on the issue of the dependency of the A&G to the Book of Abraham, are nonetheless committed to resisting it to the end—the “end” referring to their credibility as authorities on this topic.

They are resolved to fight this hopeless battle despite the fact that establishing the chronology of the production of the Book of Abraham and the KEP does not, as you have well-noted, do anything to establish the antiquity of the Book of Abraham; whether it was translated correctly from Egyptian, etc. I freely acknowledge that. I have done so since even before my presentation on August 6th. But the critics are so loathe to lose this one point that they will continue to make themselves look ridiculous for weeks, months, and possibly even years to come.

This is a minor issue of an interest to a handful of people who have studied the documents for years. It's not going to make one whit of difference to the vast majority of believers troubled by the Book of Abraham.

Here you quite obviously misstate the reality of the situation. It is clear, based on the treatment of this story in the Deseret News, that its significance is appreciated by more of the rank and file than you are inclined to believe. I was pleasantly surprised to learn, during the course of our several conversations, how familiar Michael DeGroote (DN reporter) was with the details of the Book of Abraham controversy.

Nothwithstanding the charges of “apostasy” leveled at me by certain members of this message board community, on account of my averring that Joseph Smith did not perform any sort of “academic translation” of the papyri, but rather received the Book of Abraham via revelation, the believing Latter-day Saint both accepts and understands my proposed thesis as the logical explanation of what happened back in 1835. It fits the precedent established by Joseph Smith in his previous translations. It is, in short, a faith-promoting discovery whose strength and explanatory power derives from its being based in truth—in the abundant evidence I have marshalled to support it.

… this is only going to appease a very small number of troubled believers - namely those so deeply invested in the church that nothing, literally nothing, could alter their belief.

Again, your assessment of the situation (as well as your general understanding of the nature of the faith of the Saints) is distorted by your own prejudices and blindspots. That my discoveries have almost immediately found a broad, receptive, and understanding audience, both among the rank and file as well as the leadership of the church, is an observable fact. At the same time, no one, least of all me, is surprised at the reaction from the contingent of apostate critics. Two-dimensional thinking is notoriously predictable.

Well, Wee Willie, let's test your perspective.

Is the primary problem facing the Book of Abraham the fact that the text does not match what is written on the papyri, as now translated by scholars?

Does your theory help prove that, in fact, the Book of Abraham text does, in fact, match the papyri after all?

[_maklelan]

It's interesting to watch the enthusiasm of defenders of the faith on this issue. Do they really imagine this is going to 'save' the Book of Abraham in some way?

Right now I'm only interested in which text is dependent on which.

I keep comparing this to the polyandry issue, because it's so apt. When a believer first finds out that Joseph Smith married other mens' wives, that believer will turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "no, Joseph Smith did not marry other mens' wives." Period. Full stop. Instead they're treated to debates about whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with the other mens' wives that he married.

Likewise, on this issue, when a believer first finds out that the papyri don't match the Book of Abraham, they turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "Yes, the papyri match the Book of Abraham!" Period. Full stop. Instead, they're treated to debates about the chronology of the KEP.

So you're saying that uninformed impulses are the best gauge of truth?

You people involved in this have lost perspective.

But this presumes to know what my perspective was in the first place (as well as what it should be).

This is a minor issue of an interest to a handful of people who have studied the documents for years.

Guess how many people were interested in my master's thesis and how long they've studied the relevant primary texts? Fewer people, and they've studied it for decades longer than anyone here has studied the KEP. This project is a step toward the mainstream for me, so save your sermonizing.

It's not going to make one whit of difference to the vast majority of believers troubled by the Book of Abraham. Why? Because the end game is this: Joseph Smith didn't even use the papyri to "translate" the Book of Abraham, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't match. Likewise with the Book of Mormon. After being taught by the LDS church that Joseph Smith "translated" ancient documents through the power of God, this is only going to appease a very small number of troubled believers - namely those so deeply invested in the church that nothing, literally nothing, could alter their belief.

Why are you so bothered by this?

[_Euthyphro]

Again, your assessment of the situation (as well as your general understanding of the nature of the faith of the Saints) is distorted by your own prejudices and blindspots. That my discoveries have almost immediately found a broad, receptive, and understanding audience, both among the rank and file as well as the leadership of the church, is an observable fact. At the same time, no one, least of all me, is surprised at the reaction from the contingent of apostate critics. Two-dimensional thinking is notoriously predictable.

William, I know you're talking to beastie, but I'd like to clarify what you're saying here. Please set aside for the moment all the theories about what the KEP are.

I was taught all during my education of church history that Joseph Smith "translated" text from gold plates into the Book of Mormon, and "translated" text from an Egyptian papyrus into the Book of Abraham. From my admittedly apostate perspective, it was my understanding that all believing Mormons were taught this, and that we all believed "translated" means roughly characters/heiroglyphs/<insert techincal term for language symbols here> were converted into English words and phrases through the gift of revelation from God. Are you saying that my understanding of these teachings was different from everyone else's? Are you further saying that this plain interpretation of the meaning of "translation" is no more faith-affirming than learning the real methods Joseph Smith used, i.e. rock-and-face-in-hat-dictation sometimes without the ostensible source material even in the room?

We know about how Joseph Smith delivered God's command after the Book of Mormon, and that he didn't need to find the word of God written somewhere. If your theory is right, then why bother with the gold plates and papyrus? He already had the stone for scrying, so aren't they just props?

Think back to whenever you were first introduced by Mormons to Joseph Smith, the historical figure. What details did they provide in explaining to you how he produced the Book of Mormon? How much time passed before you learned about what you say is a faith-promoting version of the process? If it's really that faith-promoting, why hasn't that been the original explanation from the beginning? I dunno, man. It seems to me like the plain meaning of "translation" has been turned on its head. Even if your theory is correct, do you really not see the elephant in this room? What's the third dimension we apostates are missing?