Primer on the KEP

[Analytics]

I have long distrusted the idea that the GAEL and Abraham manuscripts represented the working papers of a translation in progress. Since the very critics who hung their hat on this notion were always the first ones to point out that it wasn't possible to produce a translation that way, it strikes me as ridiculous that they should not realise that the fact that something couldn't happen a particular way should at least suggest that it didn't.

But yes, the loud guffaw is being made now as I chisel the "RIP" on the headstone of that theory.

No need to thank me.

IIRC, Nibley didn't say that the scribes had already turned against Joseph, but that some of them were getting a bit big-headed and thought they could do better than him. Some did turn against him later, of course. He also pointed out that Joseph worked alongside them on the project, an anomaly that has to be explained if it is to be counted among Joseph's revelatory experiences.

Or they might show something quite different. We may not be looking at a binary solution set here.

Since the Book of Abraham was not canonised in Joseph's lifetime, I suggest that at least one part of the above might not be too difficult to prove.

Thanks for actually saying something interesting and relevant. It is so much more interesting than your hackneyed personal insults.

But I can see where "embarrassing... subsequent Prophets" might prove a promising line of attack once you are frustrated on the Book of Abraham front.

Because yours is, quite undeniably, an anti-Mormon agenda, after all.

As you well know, I don't have an agenda, much less an anti-Mormon one. But it isn't surprising that you continually choose to attack me personally with such lies. After all, you would do just about anything to divert attention from the Book of Abraham

[Pahoran]

Thanks for actually saying something interesting and relevant. It is so much more interesting than your hackneyed personal insults.

Not only that, but it's more interesting than yours, too.

As you well know, I don't have an agenda, much less an anti-Mormon one.

Do I know that? How? What evidence has ever been presented to that effect?

OTOH, I do have very valid reasons to believe that you do have such an agenda. The most recent out of a plethora of examples is found in your post no. 15 of this thread: at the mere mention of the bare possibility that the facsimiles might be defanged for polemical purposes, you immediately start seeking an alternative line of attack.

But it isn't surprising that you continually choose to attack me personally with such lies. After all, you would do just about anything to divert attention from the Book of Abraham