Kep Apologetics

[Xander]

In light of Don Bradley's recent presentation I thought it would prove informative to take a walk down memory lane and see how recent discoveries have changed the debate. This is also a response to several requests from people asking me to "point out the errors without attacking the person" as well as a response to ldsfq's assertion that apologists are always the ones representing the truth while critics always rely on incomplete data to misrepresent the facts.

Four years ago Don Bradley engaged William Schryver on the matter of the Abraham manuscripts found within Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Will followed John Gee and Hugh Nibley's contention that there was no apparent correspondence between the Egyptian characters (left of the margins) and the English translation (to the right). The strategy was to claim the critics were wrong and that the LDS scholars had the upper hand because only they had "text-critical" evidence from "high resolution scans" of the documents. The critics were in "wait and see" mode, so this served the purpose of putting everything "on hold" until LDS scholars like Hauglid and Gee could get all these refutations developed and published. Well, Hauglid finally published his volume in January, but it contained not a single text-critical argument. In fact, he made it clear to me he wanted nothing to do with the apologetic aspect of the Book of Abraham. In any event, years went by and we were left with William Schryver as the only apologetic figure willing to tackle these issues.

This is what William said to Don Bradley (emphasis mine):

The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

Do you even have access to any of the images? Or are you just going on what you've been told?

I do have hi-res images of the documents in question. I would love to post extracts from them in order to prove my point, but I don't have license at present to do so.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The conditions you describe are simply not present throughout the manuscripts. Your description might be consistent with the handful of images from Ms. #3 that Metcalfe has posted on the internet, but they are not a valid description of Ms. #2, which is also one of the evidences that Ms. #2 is an earlier document than Ms. #3.

So, go convince Metcalfe to let you look at the photos of Ms. #2, or go up to the church archives and ask to view the KEP, and then come back and we can have a nice conversation about this stuff. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

The insinuation was a popular one back then. William liked to float this meme about how the critics were deceiving people with manipulated photos. Suffice it to say - and you can check the link - Don and Chris were turned off by Will and Pahoran's attitude about this subject. At the time I was writing up responses on the other forum and inviting William to address my concerns, but his response was to attack me for daring to criticize his "expertise."

So is Will properly representing these documents or is he just making it up?

You be the judge, but keep in mind that if he is wrong, he has no excuse for being wrong since, as he loved to remind everyone, he had been privy to his-res photos of the documents. Will's problem was that we had high quality photos of the documents as well and these images made it perfectly clear that every single thing William said was dead wrong. Chris and Don didn't have the patience for Will's insufferable, condescending remarks, otherwise they would have shown him what I am about to show you.

Consider the evidence. This is the page William referenced when he says the characters have absolutely no relation to their corresponding translation

The characters with a blue circle correspond to new verses. The characters in red correspond to new paragraphs, and the character in green corresponds to a break in mid-sentence. What is most interesting about this is that the same phenomenon occurs in the Parrish manuscript at the same exact point:

In fact, all the manuscripts contain the same exact Egyptian characters placed before the same exact English text. Does this suggest they were placed "at random"? Of course not. So, contrary to popular apologetic claims, the placement of the Egyptian characters was crucial to this translation project. Below we can see the characters from the copied Ms2 were written, and then erased, and then written in again at different locations, in order to match up to the corresponding text.

So you be the judge.

In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text. The only mystery here is how WIlliam could have possibly misrepresented these documents to such an extent.

It is worth noting that all of these characters were taken in sequence from the Sensen text, or as the apologists maintain, "the wrong scroll." This begs several questions, not least of which is this. Why would those involved in the project, including Joseph Smith who supervised it, fail to understand that they were taking characters from the wrong scroll? How is it possible for Will's argument to be demonstrably incorrect on every single point he asserted, especially when he had total access to this document?

In conclusion, Schryver, who has admirably stepped up to the plate as the most vocal apologist in all things related to the Book of Abraham, has completely misrepresented these documents. And that is being quite charitable considering the degree of misrepresentation illustrated above. The error itself isn't what's so troubling to me. Everyone makes mistakes, but what makes these presentations particularly disturbing is the way in which he sells them as definitive, and tries to intimidate those who challenge his positions, taunting them and claiming his position has been confirmed by unnamed experts in the field, and that all of these things will appear in a soon to appear publication (they never do). I've noticed this trend in his tactics ever since 2006 when I first introduced him to the subject. The tactic is rubbing off on a few others who have been following his lead. But my question is simply this. How wrong does someone have to be before he or she loses credibility? In the case of "anti-Mormon" books, it seems FARMS and FAIR can point out one or two errors and then justify dismissing the authors as biased anti-Mormons who should not be listened to. But in the case of apologists, it seems there is no limit. No matter how much error they propagate, it seems to be acceptable so long as it is faith-promoting. When errors are pointed out by critics, the critics are usually attacked for pointing them out and the credibility of their apologists is never questioned. Ever. It is always just an innocent mistake. But critics are never given that benefit of the doubt, whenever they are shown to be in error.

Is this a double-standard?

Edited November 20, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

I am sorry, but the person on this board that I would least trust to fairly and accurately represent an opponents arguments is Kevin Graham, and this even when, or particularly when, he is using carefully selected quotes that he goes on to self-servingly editorialize about.

As such, I would encourage anyone who is interested, to go to the thread Kevin linked to, and read all of Will's comments in context, letting him speak for himself. (Ironically, the main message of the OP for the thread Kevin linked to, is instead of getting things second or third hand from critics regarding what a certain LDS scholar has said, go and hear the scholar speak for himself.)

To me, it is also bad form to reach way back in time to an old discussion, spin the characterization of that discussion decidedly in one's own favor, then conveniently present counter-arguments to the caricature, knowing full well that one's opponent isn't here to correct, clarify, or present counters to the counter-arguments.

However, at least Kevin kept the personal sneers below his usual level, and for that he is to be encouraged.

As a suggestion, though, about how this same topic could have been more reasonably presented, and may yet be reasonably presented, rather than shadow boxing with distorted perceptions of days long gone by, simply make a current case for what you now believe, and let any of the current participants on this board who wish, argue in favor or to the contrary. Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

As a favor to Kevin, let's forget his thinly disguised attack against the caricature of what Will allegedly argued over 4 years ago, and start the thread at this point anew, though this time on the right foot. Here is what Kevin set forth in the OP as his own position:

In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text....It is worth noting that all of these characters [in the left-hand column of the 1835 Abraham Mss.] were taken in sequence from the Sensen text...

Kevin then raised the following question:

Why would those involved in the project, including Joseph Smith who supervised it, fail to understand that they were taking characters from the [sensen Scroll--or the so-called] wrong scroll?

I plan to respond to Kevin's statement of belief and his supposition-laden question tomorrow. I would be interested to hear other reasoned responses (pro or con) as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

I s your interest to dialogue or is it to push your position?

Just wondering?

JMS

[jskains]

"In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text."

That is wrong. The text could easily have come from inspirational translation, the Joseph Smith or an number of others could have tried to match the characters afterwords. And if they believed the current text we have was the source, the following it in sequence would still make sense. Moving the characters around seems to fit the idea of character matching to text rather than matching text to characters.

JMS

[jskains]

Lastly, just because someone made a copy and went to the extend of matching the characters does not leave out the randomness. You are creating importance for your own motives. If the intent was to copy, the person could have just been you-know-what retentive.

JMS

(edited cause a certain "a" word is strangely considered swearing )

Edited November 21, 2011 by jskains

[Brade]

"In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text."

That is wrong. The text could easily have come from inspirational translation, the Joseph Smith or an number of others could have tried to match the characters afterwords. And if they believed the current text we have was the source, the following it in sequence would still make sense. Moving the characters around seems to fit the idea of character matching to text rather than matching text to characters.

JMS

Ok, sure, the text could have come from inspirational translation. What are the reasons to believe that the text came from inspirational translation?

[jskains]

Ok, sure, the text could have come from inspirational translation. What are the reasons to believe that the text came from inspirational translation?

The problem is that we don't know because we can't ask Joseph. I believe the Church is truth, hence I know from revelation from God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. In this case it s kinda like Jeopardy. I have he answer, but not quite sure of the question.

So for me, I list possibilities, because unless God tells me what really happened, I am just guessing.

As long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility the BoA is authentic is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when the BoA is impossible.

JMS

[Brade]

The problem is that we don't know because we can't ask Joseph. I believe the Church is truth, hence I know from revelation from God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. In this case it s kinda like Jeopardy. I have he answer, but not quite sure of the question.

I just want to point out that it doesn't follow from the fact that somebody believes that something is the case that they know that it is the case.

As long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility the BoA is authentic is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when the BoA is impossible.

Ok. But that's not very compelling. In terms of possible worlds, we can list possible worlds in which it's the case that Obama is actually a lizard being masquerading in a human disguise. And as long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility that Obama is a lizard being masquerading in human disguise is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when Obama's lizardy nature is impossible.

The point is, in this sort of historical matter the goal is very often not concerned with what is or is not metaphysically possible, but rather with what is plausible or reasonable to believe based on the best available evidence. If you want to believe that the BoA is a genuine revelation from God on the basis that you believe God has revealed that to you, that's fine. But that's not the question being addressed here. The question here concerns what the best available historical evidence suggests, what is reasonable to believe on that evidence alone, and what is likely or plausible and not what is merely possible since all sorts of very wild and implausible things are possible but not all possible things are likely or plausible. I think a lot of apologetics conflates mere metaphysical possibility with plausibility.

If I sincerely trusted in spiritual experience as a reliable means of truth-getting, and I sincerely believed God communicated to me the authenticity of the BofA through some such spiritual experience, then I'd believe the authenticity of the BofA despite any and all contrary evidence; or I'd believe that the earth was 6000 years old, or any other religious claim that I sincerely believed God communicated to me. I don't, however, trust spiritual experience as a reliable means of truth-getting for such matters and that means that I'm left to judge such claim on the basis of the best available evidence.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Brade

[jskains]

I just want to point out that it doesn't follow from the fact that somebody believes that something is the case that they know that it is the case.

Ok. But that's not very compelling. In terms of possible worlds, we can list possible worlds in which it's the case that Obama is actually a lizard being masquerading in a human disguise. And as long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility that Obama is a lizard being masquerading in human disguise is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when Obama's lizardy nature is impossible.

The point is, in this sort of historical matter the goal is very often not concerned with what is or is not metaphysically possible, but rather with what is plausible or reasonable based on the best available evidence. If you want to believe that the BoA is a genuine revelation from God on the basis that you believe God has revealed that to you, that's fine. But that's not the question being addressed here. The question here concerns what the best available historical evidence suggests, what is reasonable to believe on that evidence alone, and what is likely or plausible and not what is merely possible since all sorts of very wild and implausible things are possible but not all possible things are likely or plausible. I think a lot of apologetics conflates mere metaphysical possibility with plausibility.

Not very compelling to you, but your compellingness doesn't matter to me much .

"The point is, in this sort of debate the goal is very often not concerned with what is or is not metaphysically possible, but rather with what is plausible or reasonable based on the best available evidence."

You are discussing supernatural events. That changes the rules quite a bit.

"The question here concerns what the best available historical evidence suggests, what is reasonable to believe on that evidence alone, and what is likely or plausible and not what is merely possible since all sorts of very wild and implausible things are possible but not all possible things are likely or plausible. I think a lot of apologetics conflates mere metaphysical possibility with plausibility."

What are you talking about? What historical evidence is there that rocks can form magical words on them? Or that some supernatural being can beam inspirations into a human's head?

The entire premise of the BoA starts with ideas and concepts that completely counter scientific facts. So to ignore "metaphysical" realities is trying to stick the event in a vacuum in order to give it no chance of provability in the first place. This is the core silliness of these types of "Debates".

JMS

[Saints Alive]

I don't see why it isn't completely plausible for the BoA to be inspired revelation?

(* Edit: as opposed to literal translation)

Edited November 21, 2011 by Saints Alive

[jskains]

That is the point. The methods used to bring forth the BoM did not include actual learning of the Egyptian language and normal Academic style translation. So why is it assumed that BoA did?

[jskains]

I also feel there is a critical flaw in the amount of words supposedly assigned to each Character. If you look at Xander's posted photos, a single character is assigned to entire paragraphs. That alone creates a lot of questions. If Joseph Smith was a fraud, he was still incredibly intelligent, and I can't imagine he would intentionally say "this tiny character means this entire paragraph".

That's the biggest flaw here.

JMS

[Brade]

Not very compelling to you, but your compellingness doesn't matter to me much .

Hold on and think about what you're responding to here. You made the following claim talking about possibilities:

As long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility the BoA is authentic is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when the BoA is impossible.

I responded to suggest that the mere possibility that something is the case is not good evidence for believing that it is the case or to believe that it's plausible. I'm not a historian but I take it that among professionals in the field when they attempt to interpret historical evidence they don't consider any old possibility that comes up. Rather, I take that they consider things that are plausible, likely, reasonable based on our best understanding of the way the world works or worked at the time.

So, no, I don't find mere possibilities for things good reasons to seriously consider them as plausibilities or to believe that they are the case. If you are compelled by mere possibilities for things, why not be compelled to seriously consider the possibility that Obama is a lizard being or to outright believe that he is based on the fact that it's possible that he is? I assume you don't seriously consider that possibility. But, why not? If you're response is that it's because there is no good evidence to support that possibility, then my response is, besides already being committed to the existence of angles, gods, divine communication and the like, what is the good evidence to believe that the text came from inspirational translation?

"The point is, in this sort of debate the goal is very often not concerned with what is or is not metaphysically possible, but rather with what is plausible or reasonable based on the best available evidence."

You are discussing supernatural events. That changes the rules quite a bit.

Umm, excuse me, but whether the events are supernatural is part of what is at question. Also, will you please tell me, what are the new rules that I should follow as I assess the claim that the BoA is authentic or not? And, why should I adopt those new rules in assessing supernatural claims? And why shouldn't I adopt those same rules when assessing non-supernatural claims?

"The question here concerns what the best available historical evidence suggests, what is reasonable to believe on that evidence alone, and what is likely or plausible and not what is merely possible since all sorts of very wild and implausible things are possible but not all possible things are likely or plausible. I think a lot of apologetics conflates mere metaphysical possibility with plausibility."

What are you talking about? What historical evidence is there that rocks can form magical words on them? Or that some supernatural being can beam inspirations into a human's head?

Thank you.

The entire premise of the BoA starts with ideas and concepts that completely counter scientific facts.

So much the worse for the BofA, I'm afraid.

So to ignore "metaphysical" realities is trying to stick the event in a vacuum in order to give it no chance of provability in the first place. This is the core silliness of these types of "Debates".

So in assessing extraordinary supernatural claims we should admit mere possibilities as evidence in their favor? Ok, but why shouldn't I do that in assessing the claim that Obama is a lizard person? Why should I admit mere possibilties when assessing the one, but not the other? Or, is it your view that in assessing the claim that Obama is a lizard person we should admit mere possibilities and seriously consider them?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Brade

[jskains]

So in assessing extraordinary supernatural claims we should admit mere possibilities as evidence in their favor? Ok, but why shouldn't I do that in assessing the claim the Obama is a lizard person? Why should I admit mere possibilties when assessing the one, but not the other? Or, is it your view that in assessing the claim that Obama is a lizard person we should admit mere possibilities and seriously consider them?

Again, you are placing the entire thing in a vacuum. The entire structure depends on personal revelation. For the believer, if they receive revelation that the LDS Church is God's Church, then the problem is one of "I believe the BoA to be authentic, how do I explain the possibilities that we might be missing".

The problem is your Obama claim (while an interesting reference to the theory that the rebooted V series was a vague reference to the Obama campaign) is wild and random. The BoA claim is based on a more structured series of claims.

Wild claims are very easy to make. I could claim everyone is a figment of your imagination and you are actually in a coma. And that in your real world, you are an elephant. You can't prove it not to be true, and the fact it is a wild claim also doesn't discount its possibilities. But unlike the BoA, I have no explanation of why I know that, as I am just a figment.

JMS

[jskains]

So much the worse for the BofA, I'm afraid.

I am assuming you are agnostic/atheist? If that is the case, then this entire debate is already pre-set for you. You don't even believe in a God, hence you are debating the events of a God, which has no point for you.

[Brade]

Again, you are placing the entire thing in a vacuum. The entire structure depends on personal revelation. For the believer, if they receive revelation that the LDS Church is God's Church, then the problem is one of "I believe the BoA to be authentic, how do I explain the possibilities that we might be missing".

We're not lacking possibilities. There are infinitely many of them. But, look, fine, you believe that the BofA is authentic because of what you believe to be personal revelation. I get that. But, here's the thing, I don't trust spiritual experience as a reliable means of truth-getting for such matters. So, again, I'm left to assess the claims based on the evidence available - not just any possibility anyone can think up.

The problem is your Obama claim (while an interesting reference to the theory that the rebooted V series was a vague reference to the Obama campaign) is wild and random. The BoA claim is based on a more structured series of claims.

So if I were to really flesh out the Obama claim, give it some real nice structure, would we then need to seriously consider it as a possibility?

[wenglund]

Hi Kevin,

Let's now address your stated beliefs: "In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text..."

Before testing the accuracy of these beliefs let's go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that they are accurate, and ask what relationship you believe they have to determining the verity of the Book of Abraham and the means by which it was produced?

I ask because even were the characters derived in sequence from the Sensen papyrus, and were written first before the English text, then I would think that one may just as easily assume a correlation of enciphered translation than deciphered translation, that is if one assumes a translation correlation at all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Ok, sure, the text could have come from inspirational translation. What are the reasons to believe that the text came from inspirational translation?

I believe there are a several reasons, which I go into greater detail HERE:

1) There are statements in the historical record from key players consistently stating that the translation was by way of the gift and power of God.

2) There is consistent historical precedent for scriptures, like the Book of Abraham, being translated by the gift and power of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

"In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text."

That is wrong. The text could easily have come from inspirational translation, the Joseph Smith or an number of others could have tried to match the characters afterwords. And if they believed the current text we have was the source, the following it in sequence would still make sense. Moving the characters around seems to fit the idea of character matching to text rather than matching text to characters.

The text of the Book of Abraham didn't come from the papyrus itself. So it did come from a mystical process. But Smith believed that the text corresponded to the Egyptian characters listed on the left of the translation manuscripts. So he and his scribes thought he was translating Egyptian characters from Papyrus XI. Whether the characters or the "translation" was written first or last doesn't change that fact. Whatever the order, it was a purported (and mistaken) translation of actual Egyptian characters (as best he and his scribes could transcribe them) via a mystical process.

[Brade]

The text of the Book of Abraham didn't come from the papyrus itself. So it did come from a mystical process.

What is the line of evidence to get me to those claims? What principles and premises do I need to accept to accept those claims?

[Cobalt-70]

As long as possibilities can be listed, then the possibility the BoA is authentic is still open. Only when no possibilities can be listed, is when the BoA is impossible.

You seem to be saying that as long as there is at least one wild theory, no matter how implausible, that the Book of Abraham is the historical record of Abraham, then you will believe it. That is the language of fanaticism, rather than academics.

Gratuitous insult.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Minos

[jskains]

You seem to be saying that as long as there is at least one wild theory, no matter how implausible, that the Book of Abraham is the historical record of Abraham, then you will believe it. That is the language of fanaticism, rather than academics.

It's that mentality that got all those people executed that were just finally found innocent due to DNA evidence. Many causes seemed very clear cut and definitive, only to find out that wild possibility was actually true.

In some cases that one armed man does in fact exist. But it's due to your close mindedness that the innocent can be found guilty.

JMS

Gratuitous insult.

[Xander]

JMS, a better question is why are YOU in this thread? Your comments are absurd and don't address anything I've presented. Your dismissal of the KEP based on the fact that the Church hasn't canonized them reveals the fact that you have no idea what the KEP are to begin with.

We have portions of the original Book of Mormon manuscript. The Church hasn't canonized that either, but that doesn't mean it isn't the original manuscript.

Yes, I suppose it is "possible" that the scribes conspired to show the Prophet a thing or two about how real translations are supposed to take place. I suppose it is also "possible" that they all forgot which papyrus pertained to Abraham. I also suppose it is possible that the moon if made of cheese, but it probably isn't and there is no good reason to believe it is. It isn't enough to say something is possible. You have to give a good reason to believe a proposed possibility is in fact, reality. "Possibility" doesn't mean much in a world of truth-seeking creatures based in reality. We want to know what's true. What's real. If we can't find that out with absolute certainty, then we want the next best thing, which is to induce what is most probably true. Just because something is possible doesn't make it plausible or probable.

The evidence weighs heavily against Joseph Smith as a translator. If you want to strap on a bullet-proof testimony that makes you impervious to the influence of "worldly" evidence; if you want to take comfort in an endless vortex of imaginative "possibilities," all for the sake of maintaining faith, then more power to you. I'm not interested in destroying testimonies. But for me, I need a good reason to believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient documents as he claimed, especially since all the evidence is riding against him. The question about his status as a true prophet doesn't pertain to this thread, so please take that elsewhere.

Thanks for not taking the bait, Xander.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Minos

[wenglund]

Hi Kevin,

In case you missed this from the previous page, I am posting it again:

Let's now address your stated beliefs: "In my view, there is every reason to believe these characters correspond to their English translations and there is every reason to believe the characters came first and were written in sequence from the Sensen text..."

Before testing the accuracy of these beliefs let's go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that they are accurate, and ask what relationship you believe they have to determining the verity of the Book of Abraham and the means by which it was produced?

I ask because even were the characters derived in sequence from the Sensen papyrus, and were written first before the English text, then I would think that one may just as easily assume a correlation of enciphered translation than deciphered translation, that is if one assumes a translation correlation at all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the civil tone.