The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_Trevor]

Wow! Can you people really be so obtuse?

Your air is so rarified that you are clearly lacking the oxygen to put your thoughts together coherently.

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

Multi-dimensional as in "let's make up new dimensions wherein this stuff might be true?" In that case, let me be multi-dimensionally challenged, as I prefer working in the usual dimensions of human perception. They are better suited for producing useful knowledge than your quasi-pomo, UFO-fan-club dodges are.

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.
.....
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.

Well thank goodness for that. Because your conclusions are nonsensical. That you would dedicate your good time to something as pointless as proving that Joseph Smith possessed texts that he could not translate so he could not translate them but instead have the interpretation beamed into his brain by divine means is truly astounding. It would be one thing if God had left these missing texts behind to verify the miracle Joseph supposedly performed with his aid, but instead all we have is the non-translations. Now the existence of missing artifacts serves as the evidence that Joseph Smith translated something that he did not, after all, translate. You really ought to give up this wasted effort and join Paul O. At least he has a respectable position.

Just where does the rubber meet the road here Will? What do you have that goes beyond naked assertion? Missing texts? The expert opinions and testimonies of non-experts? The obfuscations of apologists? A warm feeling in your bosom when you read the Book of Abraham? All you have is faith, sir. That you pretend you have anything more is offensive to good sense.

[_Yoda]

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

OMG! This is sig-worthy! LOL

[_Chap]

Schryver:

But I thought I’d pop in for just a moment to […] silence Chap’s puerile crowing,

It’s good to see you come out of hiding, and if what you call ‘crowing’ during your absence got you out in the open, well and good.

Hey buddy, I know you’ve been exulting pretty shamelessly over here, but I’m sorry to have to tell you that you’ve based it all on a simple misunderstanding. You see, all I was doing, back when, was making a semantic distinction between what Joseph Smith called “translation” and what a typical scholar would consider “translation.” Joseph Smith believed he could “translate” – but only via the “gift and power of God.” That’s all I was trying to say. Sorry you spent so much time making a big deal out of nothing. 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.

Well, my crowing is silenced. But instead I am standing here with a large luminous “WTF” over my head. I don’t see how what you are saying either makes sense or has any basis in the evidence.

Consider this passage:

(see http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History ... rch/Vol_II.)

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

KIRTLAND, July 6, 1835. This is to make known to all who may be
desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in
deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL H. CHANDLER,

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

Sunday 5.--I preached in the afternoon. Michael H. Barton tried to get into the Church, but he was not willing to confess and forsake all his sins--and he was rejected.

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies
and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.

When Joseph Smith notes that he was reputed to be able to ‘translate’ Egyptian hieroglyphics, when he says he takes pleasure in a certificate of his successful ‘deciphering’ of the hieroglyphics’, and when he says that he ‘commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics’, and found ‘one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc’, can you give us the slightest evidence from this material for not understanding Smith’s words ‘translating’, ‘deciphering’ and ‘translate’ as intended to be understood in the plain, literal and grammatical sense?

Apparently not.

In your later post, you say:

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.

Where is your evidence for taking Smith other than at his word? My earlier post above shows that he was perfectly happy to be represented in print as being able not only to translate, but to speak in French, Greek, and Egyptian. He gives no hint that his Egyptian abilities were to be understood as any different in kind from his abilities in French and Greek.

What is more, your statements flatly contradict the facts

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

But that is exactly the kind of thing he purports to do :

…much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.

I think that Trevor has it right:

Just where does the rubber meet the road here Will? What do you have that goes beyond naked assertion? … All you have is faith, sir. That you pretend you have anything more is offensive to good sense.

Those are the right words for you. You are abusing not only your readers' intelligence, but your own.

[_William Schryver]

Trevor:

All you have is faith, sir.

As you, apparently, have not, sir.

Of course, there is that small dispute concerning matters of “evidence,” but why bother much with those dirty details when it consistently proves sufficient to lean back smugly and pronounce:

Chap:

Those are the right words for you. You are abusing not only your readers' intelligence, but your own.

For whom, rather, these are more appropriately his “right words.” For you could cite any topic relevant to the truth claims of Mormonism, and Chap would – and probably often has – uttered the same well-worn judgment of those who come to its defense.

Alas, it is necessarily so, I suppose. But you’d think that at least there could be some innovation; something more able to engage our flagging interest than the same tired cliché of calling the dubious obvious and the obvious dubious. Reminds me of an old song.

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Brethren, adieu.

[_Chap]

Trevor:

All you have is faith, sir.

As you, apparently, have not, sir.

Of course, there is that small dispute concerning matters of “evidence,”

As I have pointed out, on the question of whether when Smith said he was translating Egyptian from the papyri he meant something completely different from any normal use of the term, you have presented no evidence at all.

but why bother much with those dirty details when it consistently proves sufficient to lean back smugly and pronounce:

Chap:

Those are the right words for you. You are abusing not only your readers' intelligence, but your own.

For whom, rather, these are more appropriately his “right words.” For you could cite any topic relevant to the truth claims of Mormonism, and Chap would – and probably often has – uttered the same well-worn judgment of those who come to its defense.

Oh. Let me get this straight.

A critic attacks an apologist on the basis that his argument for LDS proposition X is devoid of sense or supporting evidence.

This attack may be rebutted by the assertion that the critic also finds other LDS propositions Y and Z to be devoid of sense or supporting evidence.

Very effective!

Alas, it is necessarily so, I suppose. But you’d think that at least there could be some innovation; something more able to engage our flagging interest than the same tired cliché of calling the dubious obvious and the obvious dubious. Reminds me of an old song.

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Brethren, adieu.

The object of arguing against your foolish propositions is not to convince you, but to demonstrate to the third parties who may think that you have a defense for the Book of Abraham that you have in fact nothing at all to offer. In the process of doing so, it also becomes clear how much damage you have done to your own intellectual integrity by identifying yourself with this quite hopeless cause.

As in duty bound by the rules and customs of this board, I cannot express any wish other than that you will in due course return here and convince us that you can after all tell the difference between blind faith and reasoned judgement based on evidence. But I shan't be watching very eagerly. You've been back, you've had the chance to respond, and your very best defense has been hot air, silly pictures, and remarks about personal freshness.

Well done, thou good and faithful servant!

[_Trevor]

As you, apparently, have not, sir.

And your point is? Yep, that's right. Your point is nothing. Because other than your testimony you don't have anything to offer. As I said, go hang out with Paul O. and lay hold of what dignity you can salvage.

Of course, there is that small dispute concerning matters of “evidence,” but why bother much with those dirty details when it consistently proves sufficient to lean back smugly and pronounce:

Evidence of what exactly? When you admit that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian, and then posit the existence of an ancient text that he received purely by revelation, but (guess what!?!?) the hard copy is, as your camp asserts, sadly missing, the only thing evidence helps you do is seek refuge in a place where you hope you won't need any more.

Brethren, adieu.

Yeah, whatever.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_Occams Motorola]

Wow. Just wow. Schryver got completely owned in this discourse. I can't count the number of dropped balls.

[_Kevin Graham]

Thought I'd bump this for Maklelan

[_moksha]

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

Generally, this is only a problem if the rectification lasts over 4 hours.