Exploring The Kep Anyone?

[Xander]

I don't have a confidence problem about my intellect Loran, even if you do. Attacking my intellect for simply proving how you have been habitually wrong, is typical.

I'm merely pointing out that there are valid reasons why you tend to be ignored by critics and LDS scholars as well. So howl at the moon all you want in these threads. I just don't want anyone to be fooled by the insinuation that I or anyone else is afraid to debate you. We've been there and done that, and it proved to be a rather fruitless endeavor. Year after year passes and you still keep regurgitating the same refuted stuff while pretending we're the ones who don't know what we're talking about. You call us names, trailerpark, etc, That's all you have. And you keep running to get help from others whenever you decide to make the huge mistake of debating these issues with me or anyone else. I know my presence has disrupted one of your favorite echo chambers here, but don't pretend I'm the one launching into ad hominems. This has always been your only source of ammunition. You simply cannot debate the subject because you're not willing to educate yourself on the matter sufficiently. Period.

[Xander]

Hi Mola,

You and I usually get along pretty well on this board, so I was surprised and puzzled by your comment.

Please allow me to point out that you have not yet asked any questions in this thread, so I'm not sure what I couldn't answer.

My "rant" as it were, was not in any way directed at you; however, I can see how it may have come off that way.

I meant no offense and I certainly don't consider you personally guilty of any "kicking or screaming". I was only venting my frustration with the general

apologetic state of affairs with KEP research.

I replied to your comment because you're usually a pretty good sport about indulging my little quizzes. I hope I haven't put you off.

FWIW, I consider you a friend.

MM

Just to be clear, nothing Mola said to you was in any way, shape or form, "rude."

Only antis are rude.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Xander

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just to be clear, nothing Mola said to you was in any way, shape or form, "rude."

Only antis are rude.

Dude! Go away.

[Loran Blood]

Xander made the following claim:

Because it isn't true. The extent of the argument presented by "LDS Scholarship" amounts to Hugh Nibley's bald assertion that Joseph Smith wouldn't have thought one character could produce multiple words or sentences. His evidence? None. But this is just another reason to distrust LDS scholarship on this subject, since his assertion flies in the face of David Whitmer's eye-witness testimony of the Book of Mormon translation process. He said, "frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript." This means the evidence from the KEP is strengthened even further, as it identifies the Sensen text as the source for the Book of Abraham.

The problem here is, of course, that you do not know that there is not a third source - a kind of 'Q' if you will - for the Book of Abraham that is both the source for the KEP and which contains - as we might expect if we are, in fact, dealing with authentic ancient documents - strong similarities to the Sensen iconographically. The eyewitness testimony of a number of 19th century sources, both member and non-member, strongly suggests that this third and primary source, or, given the descriptions we have, multiple primary sources, not only existed but existed in rather copious quantities relative to what fragments remain now and which have been the focus of the entire body of anti-Mormon argument ever since.

Whether or not Joseph created entire sentences from single characters is interesting, but still doesn't give us the source for the BofA. Your claim that it must be the Sensen text that is the source assumes that the KEP is just what critics believe it to be, but this, as has been shown countless times, exists strictly within the realm of speculation and bias, and has not been shown through scholarship to be anything approaching a closed case.

As Joseph was not the author of the vast majority of the KEP, and as we still, as of yet, do not know what the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP even was, to any degree of certainty, your and other critics sprawling leaps of inference do not get us any closer to pinning down its meaning with any lucidity beyond the need you have to make the Sensen and the KEP the center of the critical universe.

I do suspect that, if we had access to all the textual material our 19th century sources describe as being available to see, touch, and handle at that time, this Sensen/KEP argument probably never would have arisen at all.

You, and other anti-Mormon critics, in other words, have benefited from a great deal of good luck in that the majority of the primary source texts we would need to come to any clear determination of the origin of the text of the Book of Abraham are not extant. Just a bit of that lost material might put an end to the decades old anti-Mormon arguments regarding the Sensen in as long as it takes to read this thread.

Perish the thought.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

And who would be having this debate with Mortal Man, anyway?

You? Wade? Loran? Nomad?

I've tried to educate wade on this matter profusely over the past couple of years, enduring his interrogation process that usually consists of roughly 4,382 questions while answering none directed at him. On the other forum there are a half dozen threads pertaining to something resembling a "debate" where it became embarrassingly clear how little he and his buddies, Loran and Nomad know about this subject. Not too long ago wade insisted the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. Nephi has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, so what's the point trying to "debate" someone with so little knowledge on the subject? He also had no idea about the existence of Joseph Smith's "specimen" containing the pure language, which subsequently appeared in Phelp's letter to his wife. You see, he and Schryver were so adamant about pointing to the letter as evidence that Phelps was the source for this pure language business. But when I mentioned that it derived from Joseph Smith's own translation, wade was clueless. So I provided an image of the document, only to be confronted with more confusion on his part, as he had no idea that this document was readily available from *gasp* a non-anti-Mormon website promoting the Joseph Smith papers. Of course this document was brought to Will's attention years ago when he was waving the Phelp's letter in everyone's face as proof that Phelps was the mind behind the madness, but wade hadn't kept pace with the progression of the "debate" as it had transpired on the two forums. I recommend googling "KEP: a quasi-forensic non-theory-ladened, analysis" which was a thread started by wade many months ago. Particularly page five of that thread. While wade's knowledge level on the subject is poor, I have to give him credit for at least being the only LDS apologist currently willing to "discuss" the issue, diving head first with eyes wide open.

Xander, I am not the topic of this thread, nor is Loran, or NOmad, or Will. Please stop trying to personalize this discussion, and stick to the topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There is a valid reason why so many threads started by wade and Loran don't ever go anywhere. In most cases, most of the "replies" come from themselves....

Again Xander, I am not the topic nor is Loran. Please take your personal vendetta's elsewhere and leave discussion here to the topic at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

I don't have a confidence problem about my intellect Loran, even if you do. Attacking my intellect for simply proving how you have been habitually wrong, is typical.

As, over as many years, attacking, impugning, and mocking the intelligence, intellect, and educational attainments of others, including numerous others with formal and informal education far in excess of what you bring to the table (Gee, Rhodes, Nibley, among many others) has been a primary, if not the primary characteristic of your approach to debate and discussion, I long ago concluded that it was representative of a psychological defense mechanism relative to your own self perceptions and self esteem in this area.

I'm merely pointing out that there are valid reasons why you tend to be ignored by critics and LDS scholars as well.

And everyone ignores you, Graham, on every subject. Welcome to the club, I guess.

So howl at the moon all you want in these threads. I just don't want anyone to be fooled by the insinuation that I or anyone else is afraid to debate you. We've been there and done that, and it proved to be a rather fruitless endeavor. Year after year passes and you still keep regurgitating the same refuted stuff while pretending we're the ones who don't know what we're talking about. You call us names, trailerpark, etc, That's all you have. And you keep running to get help from others whenever you decide to make the huge mistake of debating these issues with me or anyone else. I know my presence has disrupted one of your favorite echo chambers here, but don't pretend I'm the one launching into ad hominems. This has always been your only source of ammunition. You simply cannot debate the subject because you're not willing to educate yourself on the matter sufficiently. Period.

While I won't report this to the mods, I will just say that your presense here is disruptive, not of the "echo chamber," but because you, like your soul mate Scratch, are a bomb throwing provocateur who's sole purpose in coming here is to disrupt. Your disruptive bluster and fang bearing impresses no one, but it does do what you intend - disrupt. The above paragraph is an exercise in projection that outdoes even some of the more transparent examples of that defense mechanism you've accomplished in the past. It needs no further analysis.

[wenglund]

Hi Mortal Man,

I am happy to have passed the test, and I look forward to your contributions to the discussion.

Now why do you suppose that JS originally identified Imsety/Ko[r]ash as "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt"?

At this point, I don't know, though I am open to suggestions. However, I am even less clear as to what your follow-up question has to do with the topic of this thread--i.e evidence for or against the alleged missing translation mss, which is presumed to pre-date the relevant portions of the KEP? Please advise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Xander, I am not the topic of this thread, nor is Loran, or NOmad, or Will. Please stop trying to personalize this discussion, and stick to the topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think Wade just hit the nail on the head here. It always seems to be the case that Kevin and his brilliance, superior education, and his magisterial smashing of the arguments and reputations of all his intellectual opponents are or become the topic of every thread he's ever in, irrespecive of the actual topic of any thread he's ever in.

And that can be...disruptive.

[wenglund]

As, over as many years, attacking, impugning, and mocking the intelligence, intellect, and educational attainments of others, including numerous others with formal and informal education far in excess of what you bring to the table (Gee, Rhodes, Nibley, among many others) has been a primary, if not the primary characteristic of your approach to debate and discussion, I long ago concluded that it was representative of a psychological defense mechanism relative to your own self perceptions and self esteem in this area.

And everyone ignores you, Graham, on every subject. Welcome to the club, I guess.

While I won't report this to the mods, I will just say that your presense here is disruptive, not of the "echo chamber," but because you, like your soul mate Scratch, are a bomb throwing provocateur who's sole purpose in coming here is to disrupt. Your disruptive bluster and fang bearing impresses no one, but it does do what you intend - disrupt. The above paragraph is an exercise in projection that outdoes even some of the more transparent examples of that defense mechanism you've accomplished in the past. It needs no further analysis.

Hi Loran,

As hard as it may be to resist correcting Xander's many personalized attacks and seemingly warped perceptions, may I strongly advise against it. They are simply argumentational traps, like tar babies, that detract from reasoned discourse and on-topic discussions, and go nowhere but around and around. It is best just to ignore them (trusting in the good judgement of the kind reader), and encourage Xander to stay on topic.

For what it is worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Loran said:

The eyewitness testimony of a number of 19th century sources, both member and non-member, strongly suggests that this third and primary source, or, given the descriptions we have, multiple primary sources, not only existed but existed in rather copious quantities relative to what fragments remain now and which have been the focus of the entire body of anti-Mormon argument ever since.

I do suspect that, if we had access to all the textual material our 19th century sources describe as being available to see, touch, and handle at that time, this Sensen/KEP argument probably never would have arisen at all.

You, and other anti-Mormon critics, in other words, have benefited from a great deal of good luck in that the majority of the primary source texts we would need to come to any clear determination of the origin of the text of the Book of Abraham are not extant. Just a bit of that lost material might put an end to the decades old anti-Mormon arguments regarding the Sensen in as long as it takes to read this thread.

Any thoughts, Xander?

[Mortal Man]

are you wanting an answer of what Egyptologists say what the jars are or are you wanting what the PoGP says the jars represent?

I was looking for the names Joseph Smith first gave to the jars. The names in the PoGP are a little different and some interesting things can be learned by studying the history of the changes. These things help answer the question as to whether or not there could have been a missing "Q" source. One of the most interesting changes is for the jar on the left. This is "Korash" in the modern PoGP but originally it was "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt"; i.e., a guy who looks like Pharaoh.

My second questions is: Why did Joseph first associate Korash (aka Imsety) with Pharaoh?

Here's a hint.

[Loran Blood]

Hi Loran,

As hard as it may be to resist correcting Xander's many personalized attacks and seemingly warped perceptions, may I strongly advise against it. They are simply argumentational traps, like tar babies, that detract from reasoned discourse and on-topic discussions, and go nowhere but around and around. It is best just to ignore them (trusting in the good judgement of the kind reader), and encourage Xander to stay on topic.

For what it is worth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know, and I and Mola already felt it necessary to leave another thread he successfully derailed because of it. I guess I'm being a little more pesky here because this was my OP and he's already sent it careening off the tracks just within a few posts.

If it keeps up, I'll just start another with a tighter focus.

[Xander]

Until the missing papyri show up, one really can't attack or defend the BoA in any serious way. Even criticism of the interpretation of a facsimile can't be accomplished without this context. All the critics have is hopeful speculation and apologists need not try and defend it other than to point it out.

What's missing is irrelevant since all the evidence points to the extant Sensen text as the source for the Book of Abraham. You know, little things like the Book of Abraham itself referencing the Sensent text as the source. You guys always said we should focus on what the BoA says, right? Things like that add up, and the apologists have not been able to get away with this problem. Calling it all an anti-Mormon theory is absurd, because this was the logical conclusion by LDS scholars as well. They made that connection too, until they found out the text had nothing to do with Abraham. Then they turned the matter over to the apologists to obfuscate the matter to the point of incomprehensibility.

[Xander]

I know, and I and Mola already felt it necessary to leave another thread he successfully derailed because of it. I guess I'm being a little more pesky here because this was my OP and he's already sent it careening off the tracks just within a few posts.

If it keeps up, I'll just start another with a tighter focus.

Mola is the one derailing and making rude comments. He implied MM simply didn't want to debate, as if we were terrified of your superior arguments. As if debate were possible to begin with. You and wade have been ignored by virtually everyone, on both forums and I was simply pointing out the history. The facts. The fact that debate with either of you is impossible. You haven't addressed the evidence proving my case, because you can't.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Xander

[Mortal Man]

At this point, I don't know, though I am open to suggestions. However, I am even less clear as to what your follow-up question has to do with the topic of this thread--i.e evidence for or against the alleged missing translation mss, which is presumed to pre-date the relevant portions of the KEP? Please advise.

Bear with me and you'll see where I'm going. But first, I need some clarification on your position. If I understand you correctly, you presume the missing translation manuscript (Ab0) to predate all of the extant EAG and Abraham manuscripts, correct?

Is it your position that Ab0 could have predated Chandler's arrival in Kirtland?

Could Joseph have received Ab0 upon hearing of the papyri, after Chandler's arrival but before studying the scrolls in detail?

Or do you think that Joseph could only have received Ab0 after studying the papyri.

[Loran Blood]

Mola is the one derailing and making rude comments. He implied MM simply didn't want to debate, as if we were terrified of your superior arguments. As if debate were possible to begin with. You and wade have been ignored by virtually everyone, on both forums and I was simply pointing out the history. The facts. The fact that debate with either of you is impossible. You haven't addressed the evidence proving my case, because you can't.

I'm going to ask you to struggle for some degree of intellectual substance here, Graham. Clench your fists and dig deep. Try to stay on topic and argue your points, point - counterpoint, inference by inference, looking at each claim/proposition and its associate conclusions in a careful, reasoned manner, looking at the logical skeleton of an argument and being aware of clear or unclear language use.

Think you're up to it?

[Loran Blood]

What's missing is irrelevant since all the evidence points to the extant Sensen text as the source for the Book of Abraham.

A bare assertion and tautological in basic form. Nothing the critics have yet brought to the table shows this to be the case. The origin of the text of the BofA is not known, and the critic's case is not inferentially strong enough to support bold claim of certainty (which are really hard to tell from just plain bluster) of this kind.

You know, little things like the Book of Abraham itself referencing the Sensent text as the source.

And where does it do that? What exactly does the Book of Abraham "reference" here?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

A bare assertion and tautological in basic form. Nothing the critics have yet brought to the table shows this to be the case.

An oft repeated myth by apologists who simply don't know any better. You're simply unfamiliar with the plethora of evidence. That isn't my fault.

The origin of the text of the BofA is not known, and the critic's case is not inferentially strong enough to support bold claim of certainty (which are really hard to tell from just plain bluster) of this kind.

It is strong enough to argue beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubts presented by apologists are not reasonable, they're ad hoc.

And where does it do that? What exactly does the Book of Abraham "reference" here?

See what I mean? It is just stunning that you aren't aware of the contents of the book you want to defend as divine. I'd love to be more charitable here, but your continued attacks on me make it very hard. Abr 1:12-16 explicitly references the depiction at the commencement of this record. This tells us that what is after this depicition is the record. The sensen text appears directly after the depicition found in Facsimile #1. The same image that appears in every published version of the Book of Abraham, showing the figure with a knife attempting to "sacrifice" a man Joseph Smith believed was Abraham.

Abr 1:12 "And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record."

Edited August 6, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Bear with me and you'll see where I'm going. But first, I need some clarification on your position. If I understand you correctly, you presume the missing translation manuscript (Ab0) to predate all of the extant EAG and Abraham manuscripts, correct?

Not exactly. I believe a portion of the so-called Ab0 may have pre-dated initial production of the EA, though other portions of it may have been translated during production of the EA and GAEL.

Is it your position that Ab0 could have predated Chandler's arrival in Kirtland?

No.

Could Joseph have received Ab0 upon hearing of the papyri, after Chandler's arrival but before studying the scrolls in detail?

I believe that is possible that he received at least a portion of the Av0 prior to extensive study of the scrolls, and in some ways even likely.

Or do you think that Joseph could only have received Ab0 after studying the papyri.

See above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

An oft repeated myth by apologists who simply don't know any better. You're simply unfamiliar with the plethora of evidence. That isn't my fault.

It is strong enough to argue beyond a reasonable doubt. The doubts presented by apologists are not reasonable, they're ad hoc.

See what I mean? It is just stunning that you aren't aware of the contents of the book you want to defend as divine. I'd love to be more charitable here, but your continued attacks on me make it very hard. Abr 1:12-16 explicitly references the depiction at the commencement of this record. This tells us that what is after this depicition is the record. The sensen text appears directly after the depicition found in Facsimile #1. The same image that appears in every published version of the Book of Abraham, showing the figure with a knife attempting to "sacrifice" a man Joseph Smith believed was Abraham.

Abr 1:12 "And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record."

But this does not logically imply, with any degree of certainty, that the Sensen was the source for the text of the Book of Abraham. It could also be the case that the original author of the BofA used the Sensen he had in his possession as a reference and appendix to the text he was creating. All of this material. the Sensen included, was then "bundled" together and was found with the mummies in this way, as a group of related texts. Yet again, preexisting assumptions bias the thought processes brought to the problem. Its as if you don't really understand the difference between deductive and inductive logic. That the depiction is referenced by the author of the autograph of the original text as coming before the rest of the record, does not logically require the body of the record itself to have been somehow composed from the Sensen. It only requires that the original author used the Sensen as a reference to which the body of the text is related. Both are potentially logically plausible under the assumptions brought to the original problem.

Now, of course, if one believes that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Abraham, Then one would believe that Abr 1;12 came from the mind of Joseph Smith, and not from another, ancient author. In this case, as Joseph is thought to have composed Abr 1:12 from scratch, this would imply that the Sensen was in some sense a source, and not a related reference for portions of the text, as would be reasonable if the author of the original text were Abraham himself, and other scribes/preservers of the text after him.

As is usually the case, you, like so many other critics, are forced to work backwards from your naturalistic assumptions to evidence supporting it. A different preexisting bias creates different inferences from the same evidence, which, given the paucity of that evidence and its openness to interpretation, is hardly surprising.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Loran Blood

[volgadon]

But this does not logically imply, with any degree of certainty, that the Sensen was the source for the text of the Book of Abraham. It could also be the case that the original author of the BofA used the Sensen he had in his possession as a reference and appendix to the text he was creating. All of this material. the Sensen included, was then "bundled" together and was found with the mummies in this way, as a group of related texts. Yet again, preexisting assumptions bias the thought processes brought to the problem. Its as if you don't really understand the difference between deductive and inductive logic. That the depiction is referenced by the author of the autograph of the original text as coming before the rest of the record, does not logically require the body of the record itself to have been somehow composed from the Sensen. It only requires that the original author used the Sensen as a reference to which the body of the text is related. Both are potentially logically plausible under the assumptions brought to the original problem.

Now, of course, if one believes that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Abraham, Then one would believe that Abr 1;12 came from the mind of Joseph Smith, and not from another, ancient author. In this case, as Joseph is thought to have composed Abr 1:12 from scratch, this would imply that the Sensen was in some sense a source, and not a related reference for portions of the text, as would be reasonable if the author of the original text were Abraham himself, and other scribes/preservers of the text after him.

As is usually the case, you, like so many other critics, are forced to work backwards from your naturalistic assumptions to evidence supporting it. A different preexisting bias creates different inferences from the same evidence, which, given the paucity of that evidence and its openness to interpretation, is hardly surprising.

I agree with you that the statement elucidating facsimile 1 can't be used by itself to settle whether or not the Sensen was the source.

[Hestia]

Xander is out of the thread for not being able to keep this about other posters.

[Deborah]

FAIR has produced a video on the BOA which answers the critics. We had a chance to review this at the conference. I suggest anyone sincerely interested in the facts check this out when it's available.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Deborah

[wenglund]

FAIR has produced a video on the BOA which answers the critics. We had a chance to review this at the conference. I suggest anyone sincerely interested in the facts check this out when it's available.

Does the video have a name?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-