Missing Papyrus

[SkepticTheist]

Bill,

The claim that the KEP is not scripture is clear. We all know what is in the standard works, and we all know that these documents are not a part of the standard works.

The claim that it is not revelation is not to be conflated with the fact that the KEP is not scripture. You have no evidence that the KEP is not revelation, just as much as I have no evidence that it is. Or in other words, it is not binding on you, notwithstanding that I accept it as revelation. However, the fact that your camp doesn't accept it as revelation has more to do with the historic issue of the question of the translations. If the KEP were in the scriptures, would you not be more than happy to apologetically defend it, just as you do the facsimile explanations? Furthermore, if there weren't translation problems, wouldn't you be more than happy to accept them as revelations? Do you have significant issues with the English text segregated out from the ideograms, that is, the parts of the English text that have doctrinal or astronomical significance, that the statements of Joseph Smith suggest were "unfolded" by revelation? Do you have significant issues with assigning revelatory status to JUST those parts of the English text segregated from the ideograms? If so, then why is it so impossible that the rest of it could have possible revelatory significance? Is that not worthy of further research?

Now, the a big problem is that some people hide behind the fact that the KEP is not scripture so as to separate the KEP out from the rest of the translation efforts of Joseph Smith. Can I ask what you hope to accomplish by doing that? Why is it that you will accept translations by Joseph Smith in the facsimiles that exhibit the same exact type of problems that exist in the KEP, but you pass the KEP off as not having any revelatory significance, or translation significance?

Ed

It is not clear to me that the KEP were ever claimed as revelation, let alone scripture.

But be that as it may, you are talking about something different from the original post. I was responding to the original post. For the sake of clarity, it is best to keep this issues distinct, rather than conflate them.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

The claim that the KEP is not scripture is clear. We all know what is in the standard works, and we all know that these documents are not a part of the standard works.

The claim that it is not revelation is not to be conflated with the fact that the KEP that it is not scripture. You have no evidence that the KEP is not revelation, just as much as I have no evidence that it is. Or in other words, it is not binding on you, notwithstanding that I accept it as revelation. However, the fact that your camp doesn't accept it as revelation has more to do with the historic issue of the question of the translations. If the KEP were in the scriptures, would you not be more than happy to apologetically defend it? Furthermore, if there weren't translation problems, wouldn't you be more than happy to accept them as revelations? Do you have significant issues with the English text segregated out from the ideograms, that is, the parts of the English text that have doctrinal or astronomical significance, that the statements of Joseph Smith suggest were "unfolded" by revelation? Do you have significant issues with assigning revelatory status to JUST the English text segregated from the ideograms?

Now, the a big problem is that some people hide behind the fact that the KEP is not scripture so as to separate the KEP out from the rest of the translation efforts of Joseph Smith. Can I ask what you hope to accomplish by doing that? Why is it that you will accept translations by Joseph Smith in the facsimiles that exhibit the same exact type of problems that exist in the KEP, but you pass the KEP off as not having any revelatory significance, or translation significance?

Ed

Well, you've got it wrong. I don't accept the KEP as revelation because, as far as I am aware, Joseph never said they were revelation. I see no reason to assert that something is a revelation to JS if Joseph never claimed it was a revelation. Indeed, I see excellent reason not to make such claims.

[TAO]

my own personal experience

That is pretty epic! =D

[SkepticTheist]

So Bill, you will not allow that this refers to the translation efforts on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar sections of the KEP that contain exactly what Joseph Smith describes here:

October 1, 1835

[Bill Hamblin]

So Bill, you will not allow that this refers to the translation efforts on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar sections of the KEP that contain exactly what Joseph Smith describes here:

October 1, 1835

[SkepticTheist]

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.

First it doesn't say the KEP was a revelation. It says Joseph came to understand ancient astronomy better. Second, this is probably linked to the astronomical chapter of Abraham. Third, even if the principles of ancient astronomy were revealed to JS, it doesn't mean the KEP are revelation. One can read a non-revealed text and receive a revelation based on ideas found in it. Not everything JS learned or thought was revelation. JS had many ideas which came from ordinary human learning, some of which were simply wrong. He was an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, and could be mistaken about all sorts of things.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

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.

[SkepticTheist]

I get the feeling that it will be better for me to start my own KEP thread since I probably have screwed up too much on this and the previous thread. This way I won't continue to be perceived as highjacking a thread that is not mine.

I am withdrawing from this thread.

Bill, see my new thread for a response to your statement.

[USU78]

Well, don't you know anything about the Lady Catherine de Bourgh? She's so high, high above us.

Wait, that's Tai and not Kevin. Sorry.

This Tai?

[jskains]

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

[SkepticTheist]

See other thread....

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

[Rivers]

I like the "KEP as an attempt reconstruct the pure language" theory.

[Skylla]

I just think you are an angry person with a chip on your shoulder who needs mental help. Not interested in interacting with you because you are not interested in dialog, just shoveling your ideas down our throats then demand only you are smart enough to understand this issue.

Please stop plaguing my threads.

If you feel someone has violated board guidelines, report it. Do not tell other posters they need mental help.

Skylla

[maupayman]

For people like me that want the best explanation for all the evidence at hand while trying to maintain a faithful explanation of that, we will continue on our way as well.

Wow, so you like to go based on evidence, as long as it maintains a faithful explanation. Glad to see you are so open to all possible outcomes. I think you just nearly defined confirmation bias.

[maupayman]

Again, that assumes that JS did not just assume those were the ones referenced in the begining of the text and try on his own to label it. If he was using the wrong scroll in the collection, then your not forced to make the connection. If this is true, it is unprovable, unless we can directly question Joseph Smith and his scribes on exactly how the translation was done.

JMS

So, he used a scroll that had the wrong picture at the beginning, but looked exactly like what was being described on the correct scroll?

[SkepticTheist]

Apologists are absolutely guilty of confirmation bias. That is the definition of apologetics, to start out with a belief, and search for information to defend it.

So what? I already knew that, and you already knew that. You are talking as if this is news.

Wow, so you like to go based on evidence, as long as it maintains a faithful explanation. Glad to see you are so open to all possible outcomes. I think you just nearly defined confirmation bias.

[maupayman]

Apologists are absolutely guilty of confirmation bias. That is the definition of apologetics, to start out with a belief, and search for information to defend it.

So what? I already knew that, and you already knew that. You are talking as if this is news.

Most people will at least claim to be open to alternative evidence.

[jskains]

So, he used a scroll that had the wrong picture at the beginning, but looked exactly like what was being described on the correct scroll?

I hate to say it, but a lot of those Egyptian "pictures" look alike.

JMS

[SkepticTheist]

I'm open to whatever evidence you have. That doesn't mean that I must conclude the same as you about that evidence.

Most people will at least claim to be open to alternative evidence.

[jskains]

I'm open to whatever evidence you have. That doesn't mean that I must conclude the same as you about that evidence.

Yes, that is very true. And it works in reverse too.

JMS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most people will at least claim to be open to alternative evidence.

Most people are not open to alternative evidence. Even the critics suffer from this. Why even you Maupayman suffer from it evan as I do.

Now, I think most people mis-use the idea of "open mindedness". People think to be open minded is that once something is presented that people need to accept what is being presented. Were, I think that being open minded a person merely needs to listen to and understand what is being talked about. If a person won;t even listen then they clearly are not open minded.

[maupayman]

I hate to say it, but a lot of those Egyptian "pictures" look alike.

JMS

So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that Joseph included the facsimile, despite the fact it was unrelated to the story, because it was present and Joseph mistook it for the actual facsimile, which must have been missing?

[SkepticTheist]

Yes, that is very true. And it works in reverse too.

JMS

[maupayman]

I'm open to whatever evidence you have. That doesn't mean that I must conclude the same as you about that evidence.

Wasn't expecting that, it was just funny how openly biased your position was. Yes, we all have biases, but it sounded like you were saying you don't even try and minimize your biases. Not a big deal, I just thought it was funny.

[maupayman]

Most people are not open to alternative evidence. Even the critics suffer from this. Why even you Maupayman suffer from it evan as I do.

Most people, who are heavily invested in something, are less likely to be open to alternative evidence. For instance, what do I care if new evidence emerges on the theory of techtonic plate drift? I don't, so I am very open minded to the idea of new evidence. What do I care if their is new evidence that supports or refutes claims of my life long religion? Probably a lot. Very different things, all biases are not equal.

Now, I think most people mis-use the idea of "open mindedness". People think to be open minded is that once something is presented that people need to accept what is being presented.

That seems like a very silly way to think