KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_William Schryver]

Edward Ashment has published several articles concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri. He has published virtually nothing concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, except a few paragraphs that parrot Richard Howard's original assertions concerning the meaning of the juxtaposition of the hieratic characters with English text in the Abraham manuscripts.

Mike Marquardt has published Jerald Tanner's transcription of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar materials, but next to nothing in terms of analysis of those materials. I understand that he plans to publish something more substantial in the near future.

Brent Metcalfe has self-published (on the internet) a couple articles concerning the KEP.

Chris Smith has published an article on the KEP.

Hugh Nibley also published a couple articles concerning the KEP. His total production of analysis of the KEP exceeds all of the critics, although some of what he wrote has since been shown to contain errors.

I have published (in the form of my FAIR conference presentation which is and will remain available online) what probably amounts to more analysis of the KEP than all of the critics combined.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh so YOU want to claim the title?? ROFL! How did I not know that already!

Your presentation was nothing more than an acid trip down the cipher bunny trail that doesn't deal with the KEP at all and left most of your faithful viewers confused; it only deals with your creative reconstruction of the KEP that was designed to serve an apologetic purpose; one which is set up to ignore the elephant in the room. It spent less time focusing on the KEP and more time speculating about imagined connections with irrelevant sidebars.

Nobody in their right mind would consider yours a scholarly "analysis of the KEP." You don't present the KEP for examimation. Hauglid's upcoming volume will be the second to do so, but the first from an LDS perspective.

You take portions from the KEP that you feel support your predetermined conclusions (about 2%!). That's all you do. And the scant portions you do reveal to your audience, are generally misrepresented, as I have recently shown, and to which you are too much of a coward to answer to. You reveal only selected tidbits of the KEP, but only as far as they can be twisted in a way to support your apologetic. Indeed, yours is based more on peripheral elements such as Phelp's letter to his wife, Masonic ciphers, D&C parallels, etc. All of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the KEP. You ignore the bulk of the KEP and keep it hidden from your audience because this is the only way you can sell your cray fantasy about a cipher.

Your Power Point presentation didn't "explain the KEP" nor did it "analyze" it. Your presentation simply abused the matter by misrepresenting the documents, and referring to all of your pipe-dream arguments as "conclusive" doesn't impress anyone who shapes his opinion based on evidence. Fortunately for you, the lot at MADB, your intended audience, doesn't care much about evidence. They care about conclusions.

[_William Schryver]

Oh so YOU want to claim the title?? ROFL! How did I not know that already!

Your presentation was nothing more than an acid trip down the cipher bunny trail that doesn't deal with the KEP at all and left most of your faithful viewers confused; it only deals with your creative reconstruction of the KEP that was designed to serve an apologetic purpose; one which is set up to ignore the elephant in the room. It spent less time focusing on the KEP and more time speculating about imagined connections with irrelevant sidebars.

Nobody in their right mind would consider yours a scholarly "analysis of the KEP." You don't present the KEP for examimation. Hauglid's upcoming volume will be the second to do so, but the first from an LDS perspective.

You take portions from the KEP that you feel support your predetermined conclusions (about 2%!). That's all you do. And the scant portions you do reveal to your audience, are generally misrepresented, as I have recently shown, and to which you are too much of a coward to answer to. You reveal only selected tidbits of the KEP, but only as far as they can be twisted in a way to support your apologetic. Indeed, yours is based more on peripheral elements such as Phelp's letter to his wife, Masonic ciphers, D&C parallels, etc. All of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the KEP. You ignore the bulk of the KEP and keep it hidden from your audience because this is the only way you can sell your cray fantasy about a cipher.

Your Power Point presentation didn't "explain the KEP" nor did it "analyze" it. Your presentation simply abused the matter by misrepresenting the documents, and referring to all of your pipe-dream arguments as "conclusive" doesn't impress anyone who shapes his opinion based on evidence. Fortunately for you, the lot at MADB, your intended audience, doesn't care much about evidence. They care about conclusions.

No, what is fortunate for me is that, with the exception of the blind sheep on this message board, people view with amused pity your definition of who is "in their right mind."

[_Kevin Graham]

Edward Ashment has published several articles concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri. He has published virtually nothing concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, except a few paragraphs that parrot Richard Howard's original assertions concerning the meaning of the juxtaposition of the hieratic characters with English text in the Abraham manuscripts.

This only proves you only read the titles of his publications. For example, his 2000 Dialogue publication "Joseph Smith's Identification of 'Abraham' in the Papyrus", actually refers to the EAG on every page, providing corresponding characters from Smith and his scribes: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... 04_131.pdf

His 2001 publication expounded on this further while providing even more evidence from the EAG: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp

Again, name a single scholar on the LDS side who has published anything including characters from the KEP, let alone with scholarly analysis. Nibley offered dismissive rhetoric on the whole project, calling it not worth our time. The only reason he pretended to address it was because the critics were paying so much attention to it. JOhn Gee dedicated something like 1/2 a paragraph discussing the KEP, along with deceptive photos that had been edited to support his two inks theory. That's it.

Also, Ed's 1980 presentation was on the “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers" not the Papyri! They only became the "KEP" because Nibley felt it was better to distance Joseph Smith from the project as much as possible.

His article in Vogel's volume called "Reducing Dissonance" goes into more detail discussion of the KEP manuscripts as they relate to Nibley's failed apologetics. In fact, Ashment was the scholar responsible for identifying handwriting of F.G. Williams in Ms1a. This is a conclusion accepted by parties on both sides, even though the LDS side refuses to give him credit for it.

Mike Marquardt has published Jerald Tanner's transcription of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar materials, but next to nothing in terms of analysis of those materials. I understand that he plans to publish something more substantial in the near future.

Again, you've obviously never read these works. Michael Marquardt published dozens of pages from the KEP, but they were mostly illegible. It was his annotations to the side that were of value to KEP scholarship. Calling this "no analysis" just proves you've never cracked open the publication

[_William Schryver]

Incidentally, I think there are very, very few people who participate at MADB who are interested in the topic of the KEP. I know that members of MADB make up a very, very small fraction of those who have viewed the video version of my presentation. By far, the overwhelming majority of those who have viewed my presentation, and been persuaded by its arguments, are people who have never participated in online forums and are not even hardly aware of them.

Indeed, I know for a fact that the vast majority of views of my presentation have been by people with offices in Provo and downtown SLC. Those who are the most informed concerning the KEP and the origins of the Book of Abraham are the ones who are the most impressed with my presentation--which indirectly says a lot about you and your friends here.

[_William Schryver]

Edward Ashment has published several articles concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri. He has published virtually nothing concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, except a few paragraphs that parrot Richard Howard's original assertions concerning the meaning of the juxtaposition of the hieratic characters with English text in the Abraham manuscripts.

This only proves you only read the titles of his publications. For example, his 2000 Dialogue publication "Joseph Smith's Identification of 'Abraham' in the Papyrus", actually refers to the EAG on every page, providing corresponding characters from Smith and his scribes: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... 04_131.pdf

His 2001 publication expounded on this further while providing even more evidence from the EAG: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp

Again, name a single scholar on the LDS side who has published anything including characters from the KEP, let alone with scholarly analysis. Nibley offered dismissive rhetoric on the whole project, calling it not worth our time. The only reason he pretended to address it was because the critics were paying so much attention to it. JOhn Gee dedicated something like 1/2 a paragraph discussing the KEP, along with deceptive photos that had been edited to support his two inks theory. That's it.

Also, Ed's 1980 presentation was on the “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers" not the Papyri! They only became the "KEP" because Nibley felt it was better to distance Joseph Smith from the project as much as possible.

His article in Vogel's volume called "Reducing Dissonance" goes into more detail discussion of the KEP manuscripts as they relate to Nibley's failed apologetics. In fact, Ashment was the scholar responsible for identifying handwriting of F.G. Williams in Ms1a. This is a conclusion accepted by parties on both sides, even though the LDS side refuses to give him credit for it.

Mike Marquardt has published Jerald Tanner's transcription of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar materials, but next to nothing in terms of analysis of those materials. I understand that he plans to publish something more substantial in the near future.

Again, you've obviously never read these works. Michael Marquardt published dozens of pages from the KEP, but they were mostly illegible. It was his annotations to the side that were of value to KEP scholarship. Calling this "no analysis" just proves you've never cracked open the publication

I own and have read everything ever written about the KEP by Ashment, Metcalfe, Smith, and Marquardt. Ashment's 1980 Sunstone presentation is only available in audio format. I've listened to it multiple times. It is a singularly unimpressive work of "scholarship," and I can't believe it has not been critically reviewed before now. Maybe I should do that, too. I just dread having to take the time to transcribe the entire thing ...

[_Kevin Graham]

Incidentally, I think there are very, very few people who participate at MADB who are interested in the topic of the KEP. I know that members of MADB make up a very, very small fraction of those who have viewed the video version of my presentation.

Uh, so? It was advertised in the media. Why would we expect yoru silly online video to be popular only to a couple hundred apologists at MADB?

By far, the overwhelming majority of those who have viewed my presentation, and been persuaded by its arguments, are people who have never participated in online forums and are not even hardly aware of them.

And by what manner of prescience do your presume to know this? A hit counter tells you only how many people have viewed it. It doesn't tell you who they are or whether they are persuaded.

Indeed, I know for a fact that the vast majority of views of my presentation have been by people with offices in Provo and downtown SLC. Those who are the most informed concerning the KEP and the origins of the Book of Abraham are the ones who are the most impressed with my presentation--which indirectly says a lot about you and your friends here

So even though it has been demonstrated that those Mormon who have the most familiarity with this subject (apologists online) don't really understand your arguments, you think people coming across this for the first time, after being exposed to your video that covers less than 2% of it, are the most informed (!) just because they work in offices in Provo and SLC? Are you trying to add another dimension to your stupidity?

Uh, the most apologetically inclined are those working for the Church in Utah. And given your advertisement on popular Mormon newsletters, it is hardly surprising that most of your audience is LDS. If a thousand hits is all you've received, then that seems quite low for something that was heavily advertised by Deseret News and FAIR. Good grief, I've probably hit that link at least 50 times since its been online. So what? Only a moron would confuse exposure with understanding and then peresuasion.

[_wenglund]

Just a brief note to say that even though I have decided to leave this board for a while (for reasons already expressed), I have appreciated some of the discussion that has taken place here, and I have decided to continue with that discussion here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208908187

Those who are willing and able, and who wish to keep the discussion at least somewhat civil and reasonable, are welcome to join me there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

I own and have read everything ever written about the KEP by Ashment, Metcalfe, Smith, and Marquardt.

Just because you know how to buy books, doesn't mean you know how to read or comprehend them. The fact is you are misrepresenting the scholarship while calling yourself the leader in KEP analysis. You're only the leader in Cipher-Theory analysis.

Ashment's 1980 Sunstone presentation is only available in audio format. I've listened to it multiple times. It is a singularly unimpressive work of "scholarship,"

His was presented in a venue far more "impressive" than your silly FAIR conference. Your view doesn't matter because you're not a scholar and you're a proven partisan who is only here to dish out partisan rhetoric. You couldn't provide a genuine, balanced analysis that properly describes a scholarly work if you tried. For many reasons, not least of which is the fact that you're anything but a scholar.

and I can't believe it has not been critically reviewed before now. Maybe I should do that, too. I just dread having to take the time to transcribe the entire thing ...

Why are you focusing only on that? What about the others that don't require transcribing? And wait, I thought you didn't have time for any of this, which was your traditional excuse for your cowardly refusal to respond to your numerous errors on the subject matter. You're gross misrepresentation of the documents that has been illustrated time and time again, have gone unanswered by you. You have no intention of saving your reputation and credibility from further downfall? Your name being associated with MI is only going to further damage its credibility as well. But then, they are the ones who decided to publish non scholars like yourself, Shirts, and essentially any other Mormon knuckle-draggers who want to pimp their wild theories.

Incidentally, why do you know anything about Ed Ashment being contacted by MI when such communication was kept confidential?

[_thews]

Just a brief note to say that even though I have decided to leave this board for a while (for reasons already expressed), I have appreciated some of the discussion that has taken place here, and I have decided to continue with that discussion here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208908187

Those who are willing and able, and who wish to keep the discussion at least somewhat civil and reasonable, are welcome to join me there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Are you actually interested in the truth, or are you just seeking out people to agree with you? If you felt your arguments had a valid point to make, you'd make them in here, as the mods won't control the discussion and the major players aren't banned. Having your discussion on MADB where the mods micro manage the conversation and only people allowed to contribute is really just patting yourself on the back. Your arguments don't hold weight and it's why you need this safe haven away from opinion that doesn't agree with you.