Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SkepticTheist

My own KEP thread

Recommended Posts

Ok. Well, I've been met with somewhat of a negative response in previous KEP threads, which is probably my own fault.

Anyway, here is my own attempt at a KEP thread.

The Heartlander theory asserts something contrary to the simple reading of the Book of Mormon text that it OBVIOUSLY points to Mesoamerica (at least for the Land Southward).

The Heartlander theory makes absurd claims about the statements of Joseph Smith with regard to Geography, in the face of all the evidence, and that contradict Occam's razor.

The Missing Papyrus theory asserts that the Sensen Papyrus was not the original for the Book of Abraham, notwithstanding the original for Facsimile #1 and the internal Abrahamic evidences in the KEP, interpreting Sensen Papyrus text Abrahamically.

The Missing Papyrus theory goes way out of its way to interpret statements of Joseph Smith about the KEP and Sensen Papyrus far beyond the simple reading for them, and makes assertions that are just not supported by Occam's Razor reasoning.

Am I seeing a pattern here?

The irony is that one theory is espoused by those that the establishment scholars have major issues with.

The other theory is espoused by the establishment.

The establishment finds fault with the Heartlander theory for the same types of logical lapses for which it itself is guilty with regard to the Book of Abraham theory. That is some irony.

Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post

Occam's Razor? Um, we are talking about supernatural events. Resorting to traditional scientific views of Occam's Razor will ALWAYS bring down Mormonism or any other religion.

Occam's Razor by default excludes God entirely, as adding a supernatural being into the formula violates that basic principle. But Occam's Razor helps prevent famous scientific blocks like certain donkey's and their hay choices. It helps science move forward, but it does not mean to be the end-all final theory.

In an LDS perspective, the Holy Spirit, also a supernatural event, has declared that Mormonism is true to someone like me. Hence the belief is that we know about 42... The problem is apologetics is Deep Thought 2, now looking for the question.

It's the reality of religion. Attempting to enforce purely scholarly positions on any of this hides from a very vital piece.

But that is why for YOU these ideas are "going out of their way", but for me, they make sense. Looking at KEP through translation patterns already set by the Book of Mormon's translation to me clearly make room that KEP is simply not the source document. That it is clearly evident that there is a lot of missing material in the scroll collection, and that until we can actually question Joseph Smith or any of his crew, we can not get all the facts in front of us.

For all we know, if we asked Joseph Smith about why KEP does not fit our current assumptions, he could easily have provided an "ah-ha" moment that would make all the pieces fit. How often does that happen? How often does science have great moments "that change all of our assumptions" about how the world was created or how life works?

Bottom line is you are enforcing purely scientific standards on a supernatural series of events, and that simply will create a permanent gap between your ideas and mine.

JMS

Share this post


Link to post

In the other KEP thread, I wrote this to Bill Hamblin, with regards to the fact that he doesn't believe that Joseph Smith's statement saying that the astronomy unfolded when working on the Egyptian alphabet refers to the astronomy content in the KEP. Here is my response:

Great. Thanks for the response. I think this makes a good contrast for our views on the subject.

I guess you are aware that the astronomical contents in the KEP go into far greater detail than what is contained in the BOA Chapter 3 and the Facsimile #2 explanation.

I just don't understand why we can't simply apply this statement to that astronomical information, which a simple reading of the statement would seem to indicate, since:

(1) it is in the alphabet/grammar sections where the astronomical info resides and

(2) it is during the work on the alphabet where it seems to suggest that it was unfolded.

I can't seem to understand why there is such an extreme aversion to this idea among you and those that agree with you. It seems pretty inexplicable to me, and I sincerely, really don't get it.

I can't fathom why you aren't open to this.

Whatever the case, I thank you for your response.

And to that, here is what Bill Hamblin responded:

Because the text doesn't say what you claim it says. It may imply it, but it is by no means says it, and it amenable to other interpretations which are more consistent with all the evidence. I don't have an extreme aversion to the idea. I simply see no reason to see the KEP as revelation. It's a simple issue:

Did JS ever claim the KEP were revelation?

Did anyone else ever claim the KEP were revelation?

Did JS ever present the contents of the KEP to the church as revelation?

Were the KEP ever published?

Were the KEP ever canonized?

Is there any other type of evidence that indicates that early LDS viewed the KEP as revelation?

As far as I am aware, the answer to all of these questions is no. The straightforward interpretation of this evidence is that the KEP were not understood by Joseph as revelation. The burden of proof rests upon those who claim otherwise.

You continually appeal to the same idea over and over again, saying essentially, is it in the scriptures?

There is a ton of revelations outside the scriptures. Are you going to suggest to me that the Proclamation on the Family is not a revealed document?

Actually, Bill, yes, Joseph Smith claimed that the Egyptian Alphabet was translated by him, and that the astronomy unfolded to him in the alphabet

Yes, he claimed it was revelation. A simple reading of these things suggests it was revelation.

My research in my Nail of Heaven book shows it was revelation. Others have this book. Would you like a copy?

My research in my Sensen/KEP paper shows it was revelation. Others have this paper. Would you like a copy?

I have already done my due diligence on this thing. I assure you. The burden of proof would be upon you and your camp to refute my research, because Occam's razor is actually in my favor as the simple explanation for the identification of the Sensen as the BOA original.

And don't forget, the critics have acknowledged this simple fact for decades because they don't have a Book of Abraham to defend. Not that they are right about the nature of the translation. But the fact remains, that they have nothing to defend, so the call it as they see it with regards to what they see before their eyes about the Sensen Papyrus and the KEP.

Ed Goble

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to my KEP thread. I hope we can be friends!!

:P

Occam's Razor? Um, we are talking about supernatural events. Resorting to traditional scientific views of Occam's Razor will ALWAYS bring down Mormonism or any other religion.

Occam's Razor by default excludes God entirely, as adding a supernatural being into the formula violates that basic principle. But Occam's Razor helps prevent famous scientific blocks like certain donkey's and their hay choices. It helps science move forward, but it does not mean to be the end-all final theory.

In an LDS perspective, the Holy Spirit, also a supernatural event, has declared that Mormonism is true to someone like me. Hence the belief is that we know about 42... The problem is apologetics is Deep Thought 2, now looking for the question.

It's the reality of religion. Attempting to enforce purely scholarly positions on any of this hides from a very vital piece.

But that is why for YOU these ideas are "going out of their way", but for me, they make sense. Looking at KEP through translation patterns already set by the Book of Mormon's translation to me clearly make room that KEP is simply not the source document. That it is clearly evident that there is a lot of missing material in the scroll collection, and that until we can actually question Joseph Smith or any of his crew, we can not get all the facts in front of us.

For all we know, if we asked Joseph Smith about why KEP does not fit our current assumptions, he could easily have provided an "ah-ha" moment that would make all the pieces fit. How often does that happen? How often does science have great moments "that change all of our assumptions" about how the world was created or how life works?

Bottom line is you are enforcing purely scientific standards on a supernatural series of events, and that simply will create a permanent gap between your ideas and mine.

JMS

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the flaw with science, especially archeology. Archeology looks at a 3-D series of events through 2-D glasses.

Lets say the Skeptics were a band of nomads who created their own pots. They didn't make many, but they were awesome and very artful. These nomads came across a group of Skainses. The Skainses loved these pots, and asked that the Skeptics teach us how to make them. From our vast resources, we make lots of them, and they become part of our culture.

The Skeptics were an angry bunch and eventually start a war with the Skainses, because they didn't like the Skainses' religion. But the Skainses wipe them off the face of the planet. Because of their nomadic nature and their lack of written history, they become a lost tribe. It doesn't help that the angry Skainses hated the nomads so much that they even refused to discuss their existence. They don't speak of the dead.

When Archeology comes along and finds the Skainses, they see these great pots. The pots are awesome and tour guides of the sites talk about the great pots the Skainses invented.

Science Fiction has always mocked this reality. Usually it is about how poorly future scientists or some alien species might interpret us if they came across our ruins some thousand years later. If something caused a break in the passing of history (computers all dead and no books left), the interpretations could be wild.

Hence the reality of the Book of Mormon people who were considered a LOST TRIBE. :P

So you're looking for evidence of a tribe that could have easily been engulfed or transitioned in a way that current archeology is mis-interpreting their existence.

Heck, the City of Atlantis was recently found..... ;)

JMS

Share this post


Link to post

On the other thread, jskains said:

Wait, why would there be "labor" and "research" if it was just revelation from God? Seems that the statement you highlighted even furthers the idea that KEP and the Alphabet were personal projects and not Godly ones.

No offense there Skeptic, but it seems you are stretching things to meet your own demands of KEP and its importance.

JMS

I refuse to take offense this time for your statement once again that it wasn't Godly.

But again, your statement labor and research is really something else:

D&C 9:6-8

Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

This is LABOR INTENSIVE STUFF my friend.

Share this post


Link to post

LOL, so this is a push of his own books? Instead of just giving us credible quotes and sources (we already proved his first quote proved nothing) we are forced to go read his books?

No thanks.. I am off to bed. This has gotten too silly.

JMS

In the other KEP thread, I wrote this to Bill Hamblin, with regards to the fact that he doesn't believe that Joseph Smith's statement saying that the astronomy unfolded when working on the Egyptian alphabet refers to the astronomy content in the KEP. Here is my response:

And to that, here is what Bill Hamblin responded:

Actually, Bill, yes, Joseph Smith claimed that the Egyptian Alphabet was translated by him, and that the astronomy unfolded to him in the alphabet

Yes, he claimed it was revelation. A simple reading of these things suggests it was revelation.

My research in my Nail of Heaven book shows it was revelation. Others have this book. Would you like a copy?

My research in my Sensen/KEP paper shows it was revelation. Others have this paper. Would you like a copy?

I have already done my due diligence on this thing. I assure you. The burden of proof would be upon you and your camp to refute my research, because Occam's razor is actually in my favor as the simple explanation for the identification of the Sensen as the BOA original.

And don't forget, the critics have acknowledged this simple fact for decades because they don't have a Book of Abraham to defend. Not that they are right about the nature of the translation. But the fact remains, that they have nothing to defend, so the call it as they see it with regards to what they see before their eyes about the Sensen Papyrus and the KEP.

In a lot of your writings, I see a pattern of this type of thinking. I also see it with your exegesis with Moroni 6:6 where you demand that the Book of Mormon says that the Cumorah where Moroni buried the plates is not the same one that Mormon buried the plates in. When the scripture in question has nothing to do with something that happened decades later. You inject this unnatural reasoning into a number of things, and then tell people the burden of proof is on them to prove that your unnatural assertions are not so.

Ed Goble

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... Talk about stretching. That doesn't even say at all what you claim..

I really am off to bed. This is just all over the place. If stretching quotes like that is the bases of your "research", I really don't have the time to burn brain cycles to figure out your logic... :P

Have fun...

JMS

On the other thread, jskains said:

I refuse to take offense this time for your statement once again that it wasn't Godly.

But again, your statement labor and research is really something else:

D&C 9:6-8

Do not murmur, my son, for it is wisdom in me that I have dealt with you after this manner.

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

This is LABOR INTENSIVE STUFF my friend.

Share this post


Link to post

Sooo... Basically I'm supposed to paste entire chapters of the book and the whole contents of my paper here? Is that what you are suggesting?

I was seriously offering Bill electronic copies.... at no cost.

LOL, so this is a push of his own books? Instead of just giving us credible quotes and sources (we already proved his first quote proved nothing) we are forced to go read his books?

No thanks.. I am off to bed. This has gotten too silly.

JMS

Share this post


Link to post

How about just one verifiable quote that Joseph Smith claimed KEP was revelation or that it was the BoA source document? A quote that seems to have baffled people since the 1968 timeframe where the idea that KEP was a research project originated apparently.

Share this post


Link to post

I have provided two separate quotes in two separate threads.

There is no mystery to this except for those who insist there must be a mystery to it.

How about just one verifiable quote that Joseph Smith claimed KEP was revelation or that it was the BoA source document? A quote that seems to have baffled people since the 1968 timeframe where the idea that KEP was a research project originated apparently.

Share this post


Link to post

That's it? Those are the proof? Well for a man so into Occam's Razor, your interpretation of those quotes fails it.

Share this post


Link to post
How about just one verifiable quote that Joseph Smith claimed KEP was revelation or that it was the BoA source document?

"...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham."

"...the system of astronomy was unfolded."

This is pretty loaded terminology in the early Mormon context.

Share this post


Link to post

"...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham."

"...the system of astronomy was unfolded."

This is pretty loaded terminology in the early Mormon context.

You mean like:

Share this post


Link to post

Seems to me those terms are rather fluid.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I actually plan to use that quote in my own discussion on KEP. Especially the term "research" which me thinks that is fairly important.

JMS

Share this post


Link to post
Also, I actually plan to use that quote in my own discussion on KEP. Especially the term "research" which me thinks that is fairly important.

Well, I hope you also note that the term "research" wasn't in the original diary entry.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'll be taking some time off from this message board.

It's been real.

Talk to you guys later.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I hope you also note that the term "research" wasn't in the original diary entry.

How convenient... So how that has been manipulated too?

JMS

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×