The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_Trevor]

As I already have before, I concur with you that Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fare very well when it comes to rendering conventional Egyptian.

Then I really don't see the purpose for your participation in this whole conversation. If Joseph Smith could not translate the Egyptian language into English (at least in the sense of translate as most people understand it today), then what difference does it make whether there is a missing text, or whether the KEP represents copying from a master document or transcripts of oral dictation? Are you supposing that the missing text was written in Adamic or Atlantean, and that Joseph was a real wiz at that?


I mean, by showing that the KEP are the product of oral dictation, the critics are merely specifying exactly how it is that Joseph Smith could not do what you already admit he could not do.

Or, is the argument now down to whether he made it up or God revealed it to him? How could one even begin to demonstrate it was one or the other? Your contention that he must have had it divinely revealed to him is on no firmer ground than the claim that he created it himself. Sorry, but as a bystander this is beginning to look abstruse and trivial to the point of being meaningless. Did Joseph Smith make it up? Did God reveal it to him? Who knows?

Ugh.

[_Dr. Shades]

Here's another interesting Schryver comment into which I'd like some more insight:

That said, I remain intrigued by the connections of this Egyptian funerary stuff and the concepts of the modern Endowment (as Nibley so adroitly documented in The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri.) I can certainly see why Egyptian/Jewish sectaries would have been attracted to the stuff in the first place. And it wouldn’t surprise me at all that such people would have a Book of Breathings Made by Isis in the same collection with a Book of Abraham. They would have been, in the mind of an Egyptian Jew circa 250 B.C., logically connected in many ways.

Will you please list for us some of the supposed connections between this Egyptian funerary stuff and the concepts of the modern endowment?

Beyond the expectation of an afterlife, I'm aware of no connection whatsoever.

[_dartagnan]

ignore Graham (who is painfully aware of how irrelevant he has become when it comes to Book of Abraham conversations

Huh? What is supposed to be "painful" to me? You guys kicked me off the form years ago. Big deal. I get to sit back and watch Chris and Brent pretty much validate everythig I said. I'm having a blast.

As far as I am concerned the debate is really over. Nobody buys your bunk except those who need to hang onto faith for dear life. The only reason you guys are still arguing is because no amount of evidence can ever convince you that you are wrong. None. You'll just "change your paradigm" or whatever. There will forever be a "debate" at MADB and the mods will always censor posters and posts, as they always have, to make the situation seem as though a jury is still out.
I've educated more people on the subject than you could ever hope to. Now there is nothing left to do except to wait for Brent to publish his book and put the final nail in the coffin.

Do you really think you are "relevant"? Simply because you are the only apologist left who is willing to make a fool of himself for the cause, only makes you foolish, not relevant.

Is this your way of dealing with the fact that you needed me to educate you on what the Book of Abraham situation really was years ago? Remember ole "Provis" back in the day? That was you.You didn't even know what the KEP were until I told you. Then you quickly thought you were an expert while throwing out a half dozen ridiculous assertions that you eventually abandoned. I show people where you make stuff up from thin air, and you don't respond because you know it is true. You're only response is to make veiled personal attacks that include my family. You're a class act Will.

By the way, is it true that Graham left his wife and family behind when he skedaddled back to the home country? That’s too bad – if true.

This is just a typical slime tactic by an LDS apologist. What exactly are you trying to infer Will? Be a man and just come out and say it. What's the matter, you don't want to make a claim and be held accountable?

Where in the hell did you get this idea that I abandoned my family? Do you know why I went to the USA? Do you know how often I fly back and forth to Brazil? Do you know who in my family comes back with me on my trips?

Why don't you go unplug your router. Maybe it will solve your personality disorder.

[_William Schryver]

As I already have before, I concur with you that Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fare very well when it comes to rendering conventional Egyptian.

Then I really don't see the purpose for your participation in this whole conversation. If Joseph Smith could not translate the Egyptian language into English (at least in the sense of translate as most people understand it today), then what difference does it make whether there is a missing text, or whether the KEP represents copying from a master document or transcripts of oral dictation? Are you supposing that the missing text was written in Adamic or Atlantean, and that Joseph was a real wiz at that?


I mean, by showing that the KEP are the product of oral dictation, the critics are merely specifying exactly how it is that Joseph Smith could not do what you already admit he could not do.

Or, is the argument now down to whether he made it up or God revealed it to him? How could one even begin to demonstrate it was one or the other? Your contention that he must have had it divinely revealed to him is on no firmer ground than the claim that he created it himself. Sorry, but as a bystander this is beginning to look abstruse and trivial to the point of being meaningless. Did Joseph Smith make it up? Did God reveal it to him? Who knows?

Ugh.

Wow! Can you people really be so obtuse?

If there is anything more incapable of multi-dimensional thinking than a former Mormon, I have yet to meet it.

Hello!

You see, I have also -- repeatedly -- made it clear that I'm certain that Joseph Smith didn't have a clue -- in the conventional sense -- as to how to "translate" the Reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon plates. He could not, for example, have pointed to a leaf and said, "There's Alma giving his lecture on faith." He produced revealed text. Yes, he termed it "translation." But it wasn't. Not in the sense that you people want to use the term. So, I'm simply acknowledging your usage, and attempting to define what it is that Joseph Smith was plainly doing. When I make the claim that Joseph Smith never claimed to translate Egyptian -- I mean it in the sense that he himself never pretended to be a conventional translator of languages. He was doing something entirely different; entirely unique.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, D&C 7, and the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith produced "translations" -- revealed text -- without even having to know the actual textual origins of the words. The Book of Mormon plates weren't even present or opened. The Book of Moses and D&C 7 came from a metaphysical text. And the Book of Abraham, by all indications, was no different. Yeah, Joseph Smith spent 9 years afterwards trying to put the Egyptian and the English together in some meaningful way. But there is no evidence that he ever mastered even the rudiments of conventional Egyptian.

Does that mean he didn't produce a translation of an authentic ancient Egyptian text? Well, I believe he did. You are free, of course, to reach your own conclusions.
.
.
.
By the way, how do you tolerate the smell?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Brent has posted on Will's Pundits thread, and the discussion thus far has been promising.

I take this back; it's not so promising after all. Brent's playing a little game of "I can transcribe better than you," and Brian is just being curt and snotty. And Will is ignoring me.

[_dartagnan]

You see, I have also -- repeatedly -- made it clear that I'm certain that Joseph Smith didn't have a clue -- in the conventional sense -- as to how to "translate" the Reformed Egyptian of the Book of Mormon plates.

This is beyond dispute.

He could not, for example, have pointed to a leaf and said, "There's Alma giving his lecture on faith."

But that is pretty much what he did. When presented the papyri for the first time he immediately translated some of the portions and gave his audience an idea what they were about. There was no prayer or seer stone session involved. His analysis was off the cuff, proving he wanted people to think he could translate the language.

He produced revealed text. Yes, he termed it "translation." But it wasn't.

Of course it was. That is what translation means. Whenever you take language X and turn it into language Y, it is a process of translation only if the end product Y properly expresses what was understood by the person who wrote it in X. Joseph Smith claimed to be doing precisely that. He never hinted or suggested that his translation wasn't necessarily a direct translation from the Egyptian characters on the papyri. Only an idiot would try arguing this way.

Not in the sense that you people want to use the term.

"You people" includes every Mormon on the planet before Nibley had to come up with this crazy apologetic in the 60's. And even today most LDS would agree with us. Smith claimed to be able to translate the Egyptian from the papyri into English. How he did it, or by what means he claimed he could do it, is really irrelevant since we know he couldn't do it successfully by any means.

When I make the claim that Joseph Smith never claimed to translate Egyptian -- I mean it in the sense that he himself never pretended to be a conventional translator of languages. He was doing something entirely different; entirely unique.

But we know he had no ability to translate, either conventionally or otherwise. The end product still has to meet the test of scrutiny, which is why you are desperately trying to distance the end product from what we already know was the source. You need there to be a mysterious document missing because you know perfectly well that without its existence, you're screwed. So you just insert it into the debate without teh slightest shred of evidence that it ever existed. You have no choice but to do this because otehrwise your entire faith system crumbles. The end product clearly proves Smith had no ability, conventional or supernatural, to properly translate Egyptian to English. His screwed up "translations" from the facsimile is definitive proof of this.

[_William Schryver]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Brent has posted on Will's Pundits thread, and the discussion thus far has been promising.

I take this back; it's not so promising after all. Brent's playing a little game of "I can transcribe better than you," and Brian is just being curt and snotty. And Will is ignoring me.

I didn't mean to. At least if it was "on topic." I'll go back right now and see where and if I did, and I will rectify the situation.

Can I say "rectify" in this kind of company without causing a riot? ;-)

[_dartagnan]

I take this back; it's not so promising after all. Brent's playing a little game of "I can transcribe better than you," and Brian is just being curt and snotty. And Will is ignoring me.

This actually surprised me.

Hauglid has nothing. I mean nothing. Will has nothing as usual, but we expected Hauglid to at least deal with Brent's observation in some way. His supposed advantage is that he has an electron microscope. Well, unless he actually uses it, he has no advantage. He admits he hasn't even looked into this, yet he still maintains Brent is wrong.

LOL.

Brent is the only person who has relied on the ink analysis to support his point. Will and Brian haven't even addressed it aside from saying they disagree. OK, they disagree why? Because they have to. That is their default position to every piece of damaging evidence Brent presents.

Brent's argument makes perfect sense, and I can clearly see how the ink was dragged down from the "parenthesis" just as he said. Gtaggart starts this nonsense about teh quality of the photo when it turns out that Will was teh one who manipulated the photo, not Brent. But Brent's evidence argues strongly that the "parenthesis" preexisted the line below it. Thsi destroys Will's contention that it was inserted at a later time.

[_Who Knows]

As I already have before, I concur with you that Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fare very well when it comes to rendering conventional Egyptian.

Then I really don't see the purpose for your participation in this whole conversation. If Joseph Smith could not translate the Egyptian language into English (at least in the sense of translate as most people understand it today), then what difference does it make whether there is a missing text, or whether the KEP represents copying from a master document or transcripts of oral dictation? Are you supposing that the missing text was written in Adamic or Atlantean, and that Joseph was a real wiz at that?


I mean, by showing that the KEP are the product of oral dictation, the critics are merely specifying exactly how it is that Joseph Smith could not do what you already admit he could not do.

Or, is the argument now down to whether he made it up or God revealed it to him? How could one even begin to demonstrate it was one or the other? Your contention that he must have had it divinely revealed to him is on no firmer ground than the claim that he created it himself. Sorry, but as a bystander this is beginning to look abstruse and trivial to the point of being meaningless. Did Joseph Smith make it up? Did God reveal it to him? Who knows?

Ugh.

You're exactly right, trevor. That's why i posed those earlier questions to will.

The debate here really has nothing to do with the 'truthfulness' of the Book of Abraham. It's only about whether the KEP represent dictation working papers, or not. Really, it's a small piece of the fraudulence of the Book of Abraham. But it's a debate, nonetheless - something the apologists have to cling to - to keep the ever so dim light alive.

[_dartagnan]

The debate here really has nothing to do with the 'truthfulness' of the Book of Abraham. It's only about whether the KEP represent dictation working papers, or not. Really, it's a small piece of the fraudulence of the Book of Abraham. But it's a debate, nonetheless - something the apologists have to cling to - to keep the ever so dim light alive.

Pretty much. Which is why I found it funny that Will tries to make this debate seem so important because he is in it and he keeps offering long-winded quasi-intellectual analyses. He thinks I am suffering from personal anguish because I am no longer at MADB in the "conversation."

Funny.

The debate is over as far as I am concerned. There will be nothing worth discussing until Brent or Hauglid publishes something. In the meantime we see Will trying to validate his presence by regurgitating the same nonsense he has been gloating about for more than a year. He presents nothing new.