Why the continual, obsessive fixation on fascimile 3 Paul? What was in the large corpus of textual material that existed in the 19th century, but is not now extant? What was in that material Paul?



Sure he was. But then, he never claimed otherwise, and there is no evidence the text of the BofA was translated from any presently existing documents, or their remains.





Then came the Paully Wally man, wailing songs of woe...

Even if Will's knowledge was a fraction of what it actually is in this area, that would still be a substantial improvement over the abyssal ignorance, tendentiousness and groupthink that passes for serious discourse about the issue among most in this forum, would it not?

Did you say something, Droopy? Sorry, but my Egyptological skills are not helping me understand you. Are you trying to fake me out? You should know better than that.



And the name of the king in Facsimile No 3 is ______________.



I can deal with this. I'm satisfied knowing that your testimony is being destroyed. It give me joy.

Paul O

Sorry that your vocabulary and prose skills are still in the 7th to 8th grade area of general competence Scratch.

Good grief. Paul needs Egyptology textbooks with centerfolds and you need a creative writing class at the local community college.



Care to elucidate on that?

.

At one time, we had no idea what the KEP were. Will has given us some idea of what they probably were, or something very close to that. We now at least have a working theoretical framework. That framework, however, does not include the fanciful hope of a KEP dependent BofA.

Droopy,

And the name of the king in Facsimile No 3 is ______________.

Paul O

Ish Kabibble



You are, Paul, a mental masturbatory legend in your own mind.

Well, at least you have brains enough not to traffic in the degree of hyperbole that Will does concerning all of his "conclusive findings."

No need to put words in my mouth. I think Will's findings are conclusive in that the BofA could not possibly have been dependent upon the KEP. Indeed, the causal relation between them is the obverse of this.

This being said, Will's views of the origin and meaning of the KEP comprise, as I'm sure Will would tell you, a theory, in need of refinement, criticism, further data, and further research. Whatever the KEP's real purpose ultimately turns out to have been, I do think that, yes, the dependence of the KEP upon an already existing BofA has been demonstrated with rigorous cogency.

Gee thanks, because I didn't.



A handful of your spit is probably worth more than your personal opinion about what is and is not conclusive about Will's work--something that is changing on a minute to minute basis, in any case. (Causing Dr. Hauglid to come out of lurk mode and caution Will about the risks of throwing around the word "conclusively.")



In other words, he blew the significance of his presentation out of all reasonable proportions, selling it as though it were the best thing since the discovery of the Book of Mormon plates. Now, he has you thinking, a person whose understanding of academia is severely limited (to put it incredibly politely and mildly), that he could have possibly demonstrated such a thing with "rigorous cogency" (empty Will and Droopy New Speak) without having even started the formal discussion.

Droopy, the simple fact is that you are ignorant about academics. And this has nothing to do with my level of agreement with those who disagree with Will. What it has to do with is my well-earned understanding of how academia works--something that neither you nor Will has much of a clue about, but that people like Dr. Hauglid and some of us probably do know something about. You would be well advised to listen to the people who actually work as academics, as opposed to the mindless self-promotions of William Schryver... even though it will be difficult given the level of knee-jerk disdain both of you have for academia.

Nice try, Droopy. I see Joe Smith has trained you well after the manner of practicing deceit -- a typical Mormon trick. You're mistaken, Droopy. Your answer is absolutely incorrect. The words "Ish Kabbibble" are not found in the Egyptian writing of Facsimile No. 3.



There may be some truth to that, Droopy. But your answer above still remains incorrect. You and your founding prophet are liars. I say that in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Paul O

Droopy, Will points to the fact that there is an overlap of about 69 pronouns used in both the BoAbr and the EA&G. That demonstrates that there is a high likelihood of dependence of one on the other, or each on the other. It does not show what direction of that dependence, nor that there was not bi-directional dependence going on in the simultaneous creation of the two documents.

Will also points out that the BoAbr has more "story" to it than the EA&G. Really? Of course the finished product would. That points up that the EA&G were mere "work papers" for Joseph Smith and scribes in eventually producing the more expansive BoAbr. It does not necessarily follow from that observation, as Will claims it does, that the EA&G must have derived from the more expansive BoAbr.

(I wonder how Will's theory answers for the progression of degrees in the GAEL, getting ever more expansive as they progress on the pages. After all, it is conclusive that if looking at two writings and one is more expansive than the other, the more expansive one must have been prepared first and the lesser ones just derived from it. So, his theory would posit that the 5th degrees were all written first, then the lesser degrees taken from the 5th degree. That makes sense--not. Look at the progression. Smith showed that he was making large leaps of expansion, not derivations. So why not the leap from the 5th expansion to the finished text of BoAbr?)

I stand all amazed at how this translates into conclusive.

Wade actually once tried to identify the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP by asserting it was meant to be a cipher. Will responded as I quoted above: no, that's secondary and pretty irrelevant. I don't think any Willite has even attempted to identify "the meaning and purpose of the KEP" since then.

And yet Will thinks Brent cowardly retreated from the debate due to not wanting to touch Will's Magnificent Meaning and Purpose of the KEP. Perhaps Brent is just like the Willites, and seemingly every person who has listened to the presentation: they can't figure out what Will thinks The Meaning and Purpose of the KEP really is.

Future book sales?

Yes, well, perhaps he'll have figured out his theory by then.

BTW, Will, I'd greatly appreciate a link to a post wherein one of your followers clearly and accurately identifies the "meaning and purpose" of the KEP.

BTW, Will, do you have available a text of your FAIR presentation that you'd make available? Not just the slides, but what you said as part of your presentation.

You must admit that William's presentation would be a blast under a large tent where peanuts, snow cones, and cotton candy are sold. Hot dogs too.

I think everyone would pay at least $2 to be there. The experience in itself would make it worth it regardless of the content.

Paul O

And here it is again, Kishkumen. An example of baseless anti-Mormonism. There might still be hope for you, however, if you change your ways.

Simon, can you defend these baseless charges? Or have you now stooped to simply making things up?

Which charges?

You deceitfully mischaracterized my criticisms of Mopologetics as anti-Mormonism.

Can you defend your lie?