This has always been my essential understanding of what Joseph did with the BofA, the BofM, and his redactions of the Bible. Wade has argued along similar lines.

The problem for the critics -and especially the secularist exmo critics - is that this renders any idea of the KEP as in some sense "translation manuscripts" completely moot. Joseph Smith made no claims as to the nature of his translation of the BofA other than he had made for the BofM. The very fact that the entire KEP dependency theory is a purely conjectural theoretical construct that ultimately lacks what any such historical textual reconstruction really needs - corroborating empirical (i.e., documentary) evidence showing that the theory actually matches what the various actors in the 19th century thought they were doing - should tell us that a modern revisionist template is being aggressively imposed upon historical phenomena without regard to the round nature of the hole the square peg is being forced into.

I've never known people to flock to the monkey cage when they start eating poop. Its when they start throwing at the spectators themselves that the spectators begin go gather, which well explains the high traffic you have long generated on the threads you show up to derail and set on fire.

Just keep in mind, Kevin, that in order to smear someone with your own poop, you first have to get your own hands dirty...

It's kind of funny watching Droopy argue with 2-year-old posts.

On a critical intellectual level, it really kinda reminds me of something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qMT2YBIcg

This is a very interesting revision of what actually happened when Will did, clearly and distinctly, offer to debate Metcalf in public, and with tail tucked tightly between legs, Metcalf used every rhetorical trick in the book to decline the offer.



You wouldn't seriously (with any expectation of following through) challenge Will (or any knowledgeable apologist with expertise in the BofA) to a debate and you know it. You wouldn't dare, and you know it. No one with serious expertise in the study of the BofA would take you seriously enough to lower themselves to debating you, and you know it. You, like Metcalf, if such a challenge were excepted, would suddenly find some very good reasons why the debate format, timing, or venue were not acceptable.

Keep up the pose.

How's work going these days, Droopy?

This is, indeed, Kevin Graham - to the very core.

How are the lithium treatments going, Scratch?

Well, I'm out of here, as its already gone to the Telestial...

That's probably because you posted a series of items (e.g., a guy with foil on his head) that were little more than attacks.

Did you even pause long enough from your knee-jerk outrage to notice the dates on the posts you were responding to?

Poor droopy. I see he's posting like mad -- thank jezzus he's on ignore.

Is he saying anthing intelligent? I doubt it. The poor boy has gone nuts, again.

Paul O

Yup. Are you saying that people don't come back here to check on threads that have reemerged over time? You certainly do.

Droopy wrote: Yup. Are you saying that people don't come back here to check on threads that have reemerged over time? You certainly do.

Droopy: The only reason anyone would come back to look at this would be to admire your intelligence, (or lack thereof). Actually, I would have never read this if you hadn't lashed out at a two year old dead horse. I was a TBM then, now i am a seeker of truth and no longer led blindly by the nose by the shepherd with one hand in my wallet.

Your cognitive dissonance must be getting close to tipping. You might want to stay off of here for a while and go talk to your bishop. He has the answers and can lead you back to the "Iron Rod".

I think by "young" he meant immensely immature