Kerry Muhelstien On The Book Of Abraham

[Anijen]

nevermind

Edited July 26, 2011 by Anijen

[wenglund]

I shudder to think how this relates to the text.

Would you believe it was the result of spell check and pterygiums?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I feel Wade goes out of his way to make sure what he posts is not offending. IMO he knows his stuff and is polite.

This is very kind of you to say. As a general rule I do try to be polite, fair-minded, and tolerant of opposing views, and I try not to take myself too seriously.

However, I must admit that there are occasions when I do cross the line into arrogance and biting sarcasm--some times intentionally.

In Xander's defense, I did so with my attempt to school him in the finer arts of critical thinking and effective discourse.

I realize now the hypocrisy of it and that it wasn't the best move, and I am learning from the fine example of people like you and Volgadon to stay focused on the topic at hand and not get drawn into the personal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Weglund,

This may seem to be quibbling, but .....when someone expresses an opinion or conclusion, "CFR" is not an appropriate request. They can merely cite themselves.

You can question their opinion, ask them to justify that conclusion.

"JS was born in 1801" -- CFR

"JS was an imposter" -- Thanks for giving us your opinion. Now prove it.

Edited July 26, 2011 by cdowis

[Minos]

This is why I am constantly side swiped by detractors who want to poison the well (i.e. ax to grind) before I can get my arguments off the ground. The threads always turn into a discussion about Kevin Graham simply because he's here. The mods are bombarded with one report after another simply because I'm posting, and so they're obligated to get involved and micro-manage everything I say.

There have been few complaints about you to mods, there are complaints in the threads so what you are saying is not true at all. Posters who are disagreeing with you are getting the brunt of moderation action so any idea that you are getting the worst of it is not true either.

You will be expected to be polite. You are not and you are getting responses in kind. There is no need for you to come out swinging in every post but that is what you do. You were incensed when you were referred to as an anti but you continue to use the word apologist to poison the well instead of responding to each poster's words. You are reacting to individual posters as if they all think and say the same thing which you label "apologist" as if that is supposed to prove something. It won't fly here and the next time it happens you will be out of the thread.

You are not going to score any points by arguing with moderators either. Here is the rule you want to fight over and waste more time with: Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole

When you need to muster Hitler, Stalin, Koresh, Jones, FLDS, or any other name to imply criminal, immoral or unethical behavior by comparison you have lost the debate by trying to derail it and are out of the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum,

Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,^[1] by analogy to playing the race card. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.^[1]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Posters who are disagreeing with you are getting the brunt of moderation action so any idea that you are getting the worst of it is not true either.

As one that has been banned from threads while trying to engage with Kevin, I can say this is true. I was frustrated when I was banned, but I see the wisdom in it now. Anyway moving onto the discussion......

[Calm]

Weglund,

This may seem to be quibbling, but .....when someone expresses an opinion or conclusion, "CFR" is not an appropriate request. They can merely cite themselves.

You can question their opinion, ask them to justify that conclusion.

"JS was born in 1801" -- CFR

"JS was an imposter" -- Thanks for giving us your opinion. Now prove it.

Perhaps a version of the request would work better..."CFS" as in "call for support"

[wenglund]

Perhaps a version of the request would work better..."CFS" as in "call for support"

Excellent suggestion. That is what I was looking for. I will make the change.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Evidently, you are bent on learning this thing the hard way, if at all. So, it looks like I will have to school you by taking you point by point through the article and test your broad and sweeping assertions.

What is it you think you have to say that is worth "learning"? You think you can change the fact that what I said is true, but pointing out other things in his article for which I have made no comment or criticism. Apparently, you have misunderstood what the criticism is, but this is hardly surprising.

However, rather than clutter this thread tutoring you in some of the arts of critical thinking and effective discourse, I will open a new thread (Xander's criticsm of Muhlestein) for that purpose. See you there.

I'll take this as your attempt at humor. The problem here is that you've never been content to let valid criticism stand if the target is LDS.

CFS (Call for substantiation) that Kerry supposedly doesn't understand the relevance to the bolded question above to the following arguments he presented:

1) The dationg of the papyri.

2) Common mis-alignment of the text and pictures.

3) Ownership of the papri.

4) The different papyri.

5) The length of the different papyri......

I think your problem here is your failure to properly comprehend what I said, which is hardly surprising since there is an entire wing of these examples in the apologetic hall of shame over on the other forum where you have contributed on what seems to be a weekly basis. What I said was that Kerry "cobbles together a bunch of apologetic arguments published by Gee without any apparent understanding of their relevance." I also said he has offered absolutely nothing new to this debate. You have done nothing to show he has added anything new to the subject, so I think it is safe to say my second statement stands unchallenged. It is the first comment that is giving you trouble, because you list a slew of issues he discussed and demand that I explain how he doesn't understand their relevance to his own argument.

As if that is what I said.

The context of my statement would indicate that I was specifically referring to his use of Gee's argument without knowing their revelance to the debate in light of what has transpired since 2001 (i.e. Gee abandoned his argument). Meaning, he doesn't understand how obsolete or "irrelevant" some of Gee's arguments have become. This alone proves my point that he simply has not kept pace with the so called "debate" as it has progressed over the past decade.

Minos,

There have been few complaints about you to mods, there are complaints in the threads so what you are saying is not true at all.

I'm basing this on what I was told a few weeks ago by other mods. On my first day I was asked by Nemesis not to get lured into the taunts by others. I was also told that the reason why the mods don't censor other posters is because no one has reported them. Since I was virtually the only critic in most of these threads, if I didn't report them then no one would. I was told that the mods don't follow every thread and respond mainly to the plethora of reports people send to them. So if I wrongly assume you're intervention has to do with "reports" then it is based on my brief experience here.

Posters who are disagreeing with you are getting the brunt of moderation action so any idea that you are getting the worst of it is not true either.

This may be true, but I usually post once a week so there could be plenty that gets said and erased before I ever see it. I sense that each mod has his/her own style, and I can appreciate that. For example, wade's thread about me was deleted but at the same time Loran's numerous posts attacking my character were left to stand as is.

You will be expected to be polite. You are not and you are getting responses in kind.

In fact the opposite is true. I have not attacked anyone, and all of my so called "rude" posts have been direct responses to those folks who have come at me aggressively. You see it differently, but I can at least thank you for leaving all my posts up for documentation, since it proves what I say is true. In every thread I have been in I have approached the discussion in a cordial manner. Sometimes I get side-swiped by sideshow hecklers, sometimes I don't. But never do I "come out swinging" at anyone. I think you're probably reacting to my views, which aren't always flattering towards Joseph Smith or the Church.

There is no need for you to come out swinging in every post but that is what you do.

Not true at all. If it were true, I hardly think I would have been invited here.

You were incensed when you were referred to as an anti

No I wasn't. I never made a big deal of the anti label.

but you continue to use the word apologist to poison the well instead of responding to each poster's words.

How does this poison the well? FAIR hosted Brian Hauglid who began his talk bragging about the fact that he was an apologist, and proud of it. Apologist isn't meant to be taken as a slur, and I don't know why anyone would. But some people believe things and defend certain view points, regardless of evidence. They do it because they are apologists.

You are reacting to individual posters as if they all think and say the same thing which you label "apologist" as if that is supposed to prove something. It won't fly here and the next time it happens you will be out of the thread.

I never said this. Your criticism is based on psychoanalysis of what you think my motives are. It is not based on what I have actually said.

You are not going to score any points by arguing with moderators either.

Probably not, but I appreciate the opportunity to defend myself against all baseless criticisms, even those from appointed mods.

Here is the rule you want to fight over and waste more time with: Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole

Fight over? If I say two words, I'm accused of being incensed and trying to fight. It gets frustrating knowing this is how some interpret every word you say. In reality, I pointed out that I was unaware of any rule regarding comparisons to "criminals." That is what I was told the rule said. But the moderator who told me this was apparently unfamiliar with the rule as well. The rule you refer to means anything can be censored if the moderator senses hyperbole or invalid comparison, which is really a matter of personal opinion, so they can arbitrarily enforce it as they please. That is fine, but is is difficult to blame this on the person who doesn't agree that a rule has been broken. Whether a comparison is valid or not is up for debate. I don't think comparing Joseph Smith to David Koresh is hyperbolic or invalid when the comparison is about how new religious movements engage in polygamy. I don't know enough about Koresh to know of any criminal background, so I was not trying to imply anything about that.

When you need to muster Hitler, Stalin, Koresh, Jones, FLDS, or any other name to imply criminal, immoral or unethical behavior by comparison you have lost the debate by trying to derail it and are out of the thread.

"Need" has nothing to do with it. I made my point numerous times without it, but some folks here like to drag things out to no end demanding more and more evidence, so I was pointing to yet another reason why we should believe the connection between polygamy and New religious movements has nothing to do with God and more to do with the abuse of authority a man has over a group of people. Koresh has nothing to do with Hitler.

[Nomad]

I think this is one of the most enlightening things I have seen recently on this topic: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[thews]

Besides, even though the KEP has received considerable air time over the last several years, the sense that I am getting from my online discussions is that it is quickly diminishing in importance, giving way to issues involving translation of the facsimiles.

Please clarify Wade... the KEP still isn't published. How can it then result is "diminishing importance" as you claim?

I suspect the reasons for this shift is because the critics are increasing realizing that precious little can be made either way on the matter, particularly in terms of direct relevance to the BoA as reveled by the power of God.

I'll disagree with your assertion that critics are realizing what you claim they are.

Wade, since you're an expert on the subject, please explain to me how Egyptian is translated into anything other than the language it was written in? I'm only trying to understand your logic.

Thanks

[Xander]

I think this is one of the most enlightening things I have seen recently on this topic: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Quite a silly presentation that was thoroughly dismantled as quickly as it was released.

[Nomad]

Quite a silly presentation that was thoroughly dismantled as quickly as it was released.

I’ve heard your assertion before that this "silly presentation" has been “dismantled.” That’s all I’ve heard, though. I haven’t ever seen the actual dismantling. As far as I have seen, no one has touched upon the substance of the Schryver KEP paper. (The text of the presentation can be found here. ) If someone has addressed the arguments, I missed it. The only thing I have seen concerning Schryver has been ad hominem attacks. They started before he even made his presentation and have continued ever since.

I think there’s a good reason his critics have avoided any substantive counter-arguments and went straight to the ad hominem approach. It was their best option under the circumstances.

Also, as I recall (although I can’t seem to find the thread at MDB) “maklelan” presented a number of good supporting arguments defending the Schryver thesis about the dependency of the KEP on an already written text of the Book of Abraham. I think his arguments focused on Abr. 1:1-3. I don’t know if he has done any more research or writing on the topic. If he does, I’ll be interested in seeing it. He seems like one of the few people that has attempted to deal with Schryver’s arguments on their merits rather than just claiming that Will is a bad man who should be ignored because a group of angry exmos say so.

[Xander]

Nomad, you've not only heard it, you've seen it on the forum that shall not be named. Schryver's presentation took a thorough pounding and it got so embarrassing for him that he began to back away from his own argument, claiming that the cipher theory was only secondary. No need for either of us to pretend we haven't gone over this stuff for months already.

To say criticisms of Schryver's ridiculous arguments have been nothing but ad hominem, is absurd and you know it. I had been addressing Schryver's numerous Pundits arguments over the years on the other forum and I would always demonstrate how he misrepresented the data and clearly explained why he was wrong. Never did my response amount to "Schryver is a bad person, therefore don't listen to him." I did however, on other occasions, illustrate in detail why the man should not be trusted. His penchant for misrepresenting documents is just too much to overlook.

And Schryver (who many on the other forum have reason to believe is YOU) is suffering his own credibility crisis which has been brought on by none other than himself.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xander

[Nomad]

Nomad, you've not only heard it, you've seen it on the forum that shall not be named. Schryver's presentation took a thorough pounding and it got so embarrassing for him that he began to back away from his own argument, claiming that the cipher theory was only secondary. No need for either of us to pretend we haven't gone over this stuff for months already.

To say criticisms of Schryver's ridiculous arguments have been nothing but ad hominem, is absurd and you know it. I had been addressing Schryver's numerous Pundits arguments over the years on the other forum and I would always demonstrate how he misrepresented the data and clearly explained why he was wrong. Never did my response amount to "Schryver is a bad person, therefore don't listen to him." I did however, on other occasions, illustrate in detail why the man should not be trusted. His penchant for misrepresenting documents is just too much to overlook.

And Schryver (who many on the other forum have reason to believe is YOU) is suffering his own credibility crisis which has been brought on by none other than himself.

The only thing I’ve seen is repeated claims that Schryver’s arguments have been dismantled. Kind of like when Brent Metcalfe appeared on this message board shortly after Schryver’s presentation was completed last year, and simply wrote that it contained many “factual errors” (or something like that). He never came back to list those errors or to present any counter arguments. As far as I’m aware, no one has. It’s just the same old repetition of the claim that the arguments were shown to be “silly” or “ridiculous” etc. Over and over again. The only person, as far as I have seen, to actually engage the arguments was Daniel McClellan, and he was defending them. Everyone who has disagreed with Schryver has done it just by asserting that the arguments were bad, and then talking about what a despicable person he is. It’s a great strategy, I suppose, from the standpoint of exmormon critics. Most of the exmormons don’t require anything more than for people to assure them that such and such is just a bunch of apologetic fooey. Makes it a lot easier.

I have noticed that maklelan is posting on this board today. If he happens on this thread, maybe he can tell us if he’s looked into these issues any more. I liked his approach to the debate, although even he got targeted for the ad hominem approach when he tried to discuss these things at MDB. That’s par for the course over there.

But I'm not going to get into these things with you. I'd sooner smack myself in the head with a hammer over and over. All I will say is that I have been impressed by the solid logic and evidence that was presented by Schryver. I encourage those who are interested in this topic to check it out at the link I posted above. It's very well done. Very understandable. And I think it is persuasive.

[Minos]

Another thread that will be quickly closed if it degenerates into carping about personalities. The next poster to use names instead of the content of an article, book, etc. will be banned from the thread.

[Pahoran]

Nomad, you've not only heard it, you've seen it on the forum that shall not be named. Schryver's presentation took a thorough pounding and it got so embarrassing for him that he began to back away from his own argument, claiming that the cipher theory was only secondary.

Such is the legend. The reality is that he said that the cipher theory was secondary to the English text pre-dating the KEP's in his original presentation. Characterising this as "backing away from his own argument" when it is part of his original argument may have some tactical value, but it represents no reality.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Please clarify Wade... the KEP still isn't published. How can it then result is "diminishing importance" as you claim?

Images of significant portions of the KEP have been publicly accessible for decades, enough to have stirred considerable debate--much of it online. The debate would not have been considerable had it not been deemed of some importance. From my experience, the debate regarding the KEP has somewhat diminished, shifting to other BoA issue. The decline in debate, in my estimation, is due to relative diminished importance.

I'll disagree with your assertion that critics are realizing what you claim they are.

That's okay. There is ample room for reasonable differences of opinion.

Wade, since you're an expert on the subject, please explain to me how Egyptian is translated into anything other than the language it was written in? I'm only trying to understand your logic.

First, I am not an expert. Second, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "how." Are you asking for a general description of translation processes? Third, what "logic" in particular are you trying to understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There is no disputing the existence of the English text in the KEP (EA's, GAEL, and Mss).

Over the years both apologist and critic alike have have attempted, in their own respective ways, to proffer theories and arguments in hopes of best explaining the existence of the English text.

This issue is one of the points where Kerry's Q&A article intersects with Will's much talked about FAIR presentation. Kerry and Will posit that the English text for the EA's, GAEL, and mmss., were derived from what we LDS consider divinely assisted "translations," including, though not restricted to, portions of the BoA.

These men aren't alone in forwarding this general proposition. Critics, like Xander, contend that the BoA, and thus the KEP, were derived from the Book of Genesis and other texts that predate the BoA and KEP.

Where these critics may part company is over the question whether portions of the BoA predate the KEP. The critics may believe not, while certain apologist believe so.

Since the alleged original "translation" of the BoA has yet to be produced, those of us arguing for a BoA priority have been left to rely on circumstantial evidence--which is pretty much all that both critics and apologists have to support their respective theories and arguments.

Even still, it may be of interest to examine the various apologetic arguments in favor of BoA priority, and compare them with alternative theories and arguments to see which best explains the existence of the KEP English texts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Such is the legend. The reality is that he said that the cipher theory was secondary to the English text pre-dating the KEP's in his original presentation. Characterising this as "backing away from his own argument" when it is part of his original argument may have some tactical value, but it represents no reality.

Regards,

Pahoran

You're wrong. I went through his videos and timed how much time he spent on each argument, and the cipher took up most of the time. To say the BoA manuscript portion of the KEP relies on some missing text means nothing to curious onlookers who were told that he discovered the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP project. It makes no sense to say this was the meaning and purpose.

The name of the presentation suggests his intended primary argument as does the amount of time he spent on each one. So the "meaning" of the KEP is that a preexisting text existed before the BoA manuscripts? This makes no sense whatsoever. You responded to his presentation last year by saying his greatest contribution is that he "explained" what the thing was. Well, what was it? It was his cipher argument which we dismantled after showing he had misrepresented the documents. This is what drove the Mormon web (including blogs and Newsletters) nuts with excitement even before the presentation. Some genius finally cracked the code that escaped intellectual giants like Hugh Nibley. Every anti-Mormon criticism would become irrelevant as the true "purpose" of the KEP would be revealed, finally.

And what would that purpose be?

That a small portion of these contents (the BoA manuscripts) were not the original translation manuscripts because these were based on a preexistent narrative.

Please.

[wenglund]

You're wrong. I went through his videos and timed how much time he spent on each argument, and the cipher took up most of the time. To say the BoA manuscript portion of the KEP relies on some missing text means nothing to curious onlookers who were told that he discovered the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP project. It makes no sense to say this was the meaning and purpose.

The name of the presentation suggests his intended primary argument as does the amount of time he spent on each one.

One is certainly free to ignore the author's explicit declarations as to what his thesis entailed and which arguments were related thereto, and choose instead to put words into the author's mouth using clicks of a stop watch and one's own interpretation of the title. But, doing so tends to defy the conventions of effective discourse.

One may do well to note that the title of Will's presentation doesn't contain the word "Cipher."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Is there evidence of a non-extant "translation" of portion of the BoA that predates the EA and GAEL and Mss?

Some here may be familiar with the various arguments I have presented here and elsewhere:

1) There is historical evidence that at least some translation of the papyri predates production of the EA. There is also historical evidence that prior to production of the EA, Joseph believed the papyri contained the record of Abraham. This belief appears to extend somewhat beyond who the record was about, but also entail a bit about what the record of Abraham was about. From this, one may reasonably induce that the partial translations of the papyri that predates production of the EA, was translations of a portion of the BoA.

2) There is a historical pattern set by previous scriptural translations (the BoM and JST--including the Book of Moses) where at least some translation predate the production of alphabets, if at all. The official historical record intimates that Joseph translated some characters from the golden plates prior to drafting the sheet of characters presumed by some to be an Egyptian alphabet, to be sent to learned men like Anthon. Now, whether one agrees or not with the official historical record or favors opposing conclusions drawn from other historical accounts, and regardless whether or not one believes that Joseph considered sending the characters with the intent of having them translated by the learned men and then using their translation to translate the BoM, or whether one believes they were sent in fulfillment of scriptural prophesy, at the very most, all one can claim as actually happening, is that the alphabet of Egyptian characters were simply written down. To my knowledge, no English translation of those characters were produced. In other words, the entire BoM was published prior to the alphabet getting beyond the initial phase of simply writing down the characters. Translation of the BoM, then, predates any semblance of a working alphabet. And, to my knowledge, no alphabets were created in relation to the Joseph Smith translations of the Bible. Given this pattern, there is reason to think it likely that translation of at least a portion of the BoA may predate the EA.

3) The KEP production sequence suggests a pre-existing translation of at least a portion of the BoA--see my puzzle analogy.

4) If one believes that the English text of the KEP was derived from pre-existing texts like the Bible, then reason suggest that the same could be true for the BoA.

These argument have understandably registered far from compelling among the critics. So, rather than rehashing them here, perhaps it would be good to consider additional arguments raised by Will and others and briefly mentioned by Kerry. Specifically, lets look at the text, itself, to see if it gives indication of which came first, the BoA translation or the KEP.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

One is certainly free to ignore the author's explicit declarations as to what his thesis entailed and which arguments were related thereto, and choose instead to put words into the author's mouth using clicks of a stop watch and one's own interpretation of the title. But, doing so tends to defy the conventions of effective discourse.

One may do well to note that the title of Will's presentation doesn't contain the word "Cipher."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've ignored nothing, but have identified his after the fact "specific declarations" as an insult to anyone who saw his presentation.

Again, the position is easily refuted by the simple fact that it makes no sense to say the "meaning and purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian papers is that a small portion of it represent copies of a lost original. Even if the claim is true, it is a relatively insignificant theory and hardly tells us the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP. At best, it would only tell us the purpose of those specific manuscripts, which he never addressed at all.

He spent most of his time addressing the other documents which he tried to use to prove the entire project was about enciphering information into a code. None of you can even explain how this makes sense, and the reason you can't is because it doesn't. All you can do is attack me for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who doesn't cringe to see fellow LDS members proved wrong.

What I have said is based entirely on what the author has said. Only after this thesis was shot out of the water did the author (by facts already mentioned) begin to downplay the significance of what his presentation purported to prove, by insisting his "primary" argument was something he spent little time discussing, and virtually no time validating with evidence. There is no "interpretation of the title" involved. To this day none of you can tell me how he succeeded in explaining what the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP were. You won't even try because to do so would mean you'd have to admit it was all about cipher.

The author's methodology is particularly embarrassing, because it relied strictly on a "substantial word analysis" which is something he made up. He seems to think that this somehow refutes the critics and establishes a preexistent "translation manuscript" that's somehow gone missing. The funniest thing about it is that this proves how unfamiliar he is with what the critics have argued. The bulk of the BoA narrative already existed. Yes, we have been saying this all along, and that is the point. The basic narrative exists in the Book of Genesis with some of it crossing over into the Book of Moses. As is often the case, what we're dealing with is a straw man a a sophomoric understanding of both the source documents as well as what the critics have actually been arguing all this time.

[Pahoran]

You're wrong. I went through his videos and timed how much time he spent on each argument, and the cipher took up most of the time. To say the BoA manuscript portion of the KEP relies on some missing text means nothing to curious onlookers who were told that he discovered the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP project. It makes no sense to say this was the meaning and purpose.

No, but what your bean-counting exercise tries to obfuscate is that Schryver says at least once, and very emphatically, that the cipher theory is secondary to the fact that the Book of Abraham text pre-exists the KEP's. Thus, to say that he is "backing away from his own argument" when he is actually reiterating what he said all along, is to assert something that is simply not true.

I've ignored nothing, but have identified his after the fact "specific declarations" as an insult to anyone who saw his presentation.

"Identified?" That's an unusual way to spell "smeared."

The fact (again) is that what you try to characterise as "after the fact" merely reiterates what he said from the outset.

Again, the position is easily refuted by the simple fact that it makes no sense to say the "meaning and purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian papers is that a small portion of it represent copies of a lost original. Even if the claim is true, it is a relatively insignificant theory and hardly tells us the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP. At best, it would only tell us the purpose of those specific manuscripts, which he never addressed at all.

It is relevant because it cogently argues that the purpose of the KEP's is something other than a translation-in-progress of the Book of Abraham, which has been the critics' darling theory since approximately forever.

He spent most of his time addressing the other documents which he tried to use to prove the entire project was about enciphering information into a code. None of you can even explain how this makes sense, and the reason you can't is because it doesn't. All you can do is attack me for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who doesn't cringe to see fellow LDS members proved wrong.

Yes, we know it's been a very long time since you had any loyalty to any Latter-day Saints. If Will's cipher theory is to be discarded because it doesn't make sense, then you should set the example by discarding the "translation in progress" theory, because that never made sense. As your drunken buddy Paul Osborne slobbers to anyone who will listen, Joseph specifically identified columns of up to eight characters as representing the name of a single person. Does it really "make sense" to you that, in the course of the very same project, he was translating entire paragraphs from single characters? Fifty words and more from three strokes and a dot?

The author's methodology is particularly embarrassing, because it relied strictly on a "substantial word analysis" which is something he made up. He seems to think that this somehow refutes the critics and establishes a preexistent "translation manuscript" that's somehow gone missing. The funniest thing about it is that this proves how unfamiliar he is with what the critics have argued. The bulk of the BoA narrative already existed. Yes, we have been saying this all along, and that is the point.

Oh, so you (plural, I presume you include Charles Larson, Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson in your club) "have been saying this all along," namely that the KEP's do not represent a translation in progress?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

One is certainly free to ignore the author's explicit declarations as to what his thesis entailed and which arguments were related thereto, and choose instead to put words into the author's mouth using clicks of a stop watch and one's own interpretation of the title. But, doing so tends to defy the conventions of effective discourse.

What you have to understand, Wade, is that in the Grahamverse, no LDS defender has any right to claim his own position. His position is, always was, and ever shall be exactly what The Graham decrees, and anyone who dares to disagree is obviously a liar!

Regards,

Pahoran