Uh, I've got some bad news for you sunshine: other than message board postings, Metcalfe has never argued anything.
Probably not with you, because you aren't at his level. He has, however, utterly decimated your mentor Brian Hauglid whenever he finds his gonads and steps up to the plate.
Nor has he ever yet, except in the minds of his die-hard acolytes, been able to rebut the mere handful of arguments (to date) that I have made concerning the Abraham manuscripts. If you believe he "carried the day" in the abbreviated debates concerning the Haran dittograph and the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12, it's just a measure of the extent of your self-delusion.
Hell, Chris and I have dismantled your silly Haran dittograph theory numerous times, and these responses have been online for years. You're the one who takes off and refuses to debate the issue. But it doesn't matter since your responses always end up being as meaningless as the one above. They always amount to something along the lines of "I'm right and if you think you've successfully refuted me then you're delusional." Well, I can assure you we've successfully convinced LDS and non-LDS alike. The only people you can convince are other LDS apologists who are just excited to know that someone else is stupid enough to take the bullet and address the topic.
Every time things get too hot for him to handle anymore, he simply retreats into his "other pressing commitments" bunker and that's the end of the discussion.
I think you delude yourself into thinking Brent pays you any attention at all. From what I remember, he usually showed up whenever Hauglid did, and you were wrong on so many points it was a waste of time. You were, are and forever will be a side-kick showman and Hauglid's lapdog.
And, from this point forward, he's going to have to publish something in order for anyone to take him seriously.
Far more people take him seriously than you or Hauglid. His publication will come eventually, and when it does, you'll just pull the usual stunt of talking about another future publication that will refute what he refuted. It is a neverending story with you.
You people think you've seen what I have to say on this topic.
Uh, you just bragged about your dumb dittograph argument that had been beaten to death several times over the years. As well as your idiotic notion that Joseph Smith didn't need any materials in order to provide translations of ancient documents. If you're still mentioning this as your big bad argument, then I think it is safe to say we have some idea what you're trying to argue.
What you fail to understand is that I have been assiduously careful to never reveal a single thing about what I've really been doing.
Give us a break Will. You're a showman and a salesman and this is just your way of martketing another flop. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us.
I am confident I can show that what people have believed concerning the nature of its production is wrong
Which will never change the fact that he could not do what he said he could do. He believed he was translating documents from Egyptian to English, period. If you agree that he couldn't, then you've done more for the critics than Metcalfe ever could because it would prove Joseph Smith deluded himself into thinking he translate documents, which means he could have deluded himself, as well as the entire church, on a number of other claims. That's essentially what most anti-Mormons try to prove, but if you want to do that for them, then go right ahead. I truly believe you're that dumb to think you're serving the Church by doing so.
I believe I can return the debate to where it always should have been: on the questions concerning the text of the Book of Abraham, rather than the essentially irrelevant questions about how it came to be.
Another outdated Nibley argument that only Bokovoy can now emulate with his creative abuse of ancient sources to fit his pet apologetic "parallels." (are you sure you have something NEW??) The fact that Joseph Smith had access to books that related to many of these so-called parallels seems to mean nothing at all to you guys. But that's fine, because it matters to those who are not strapped to a reason-suppressing testimony.
You're a freaking nut case and everyone knows it. The only time people here even back you is when you're dealing with me, otherwise they recognize you for the bona fide loon you are.
If I am so ignorant then why did you rely on me to educate you about the KEP in May of 2006? You were so dumb you thought the KEP were the papyri, and then said you had examined the contents extensively, completely ignorant of the fact that not even John Gee had done that. I then educated the forum on what the KEP were with detailed explanations and color photos, you then realized you made a fool of yourself, and conveniently excused yourself from the discussion and decided to wait a few days before slowly sneaking back into the discussions. You then emailed me a thousand word diatribe out of the blue asking me to educate you further on the matter, apologizing to me for saying I was on the verge of apostasy, etc. I declined, because I knew you weren't sincere. You were a fake, and that was proved beyond doubt a few days later when Metcalfe asked me if I knew who William Schryver was. I never claimed to be an authority. I gladly pass that designantion on to Metcalfe, Ashment, Smith and Cook. The first two had their falling away many years ago and the other two are non-LDS. I was still going through my falling away, and it was difficult. But I know the intricacies of the debate as well as anyone else, and I have refuted your stupidity more times than I can count. I'd give you links, but you already have them, and refuse to address your deceptive tactics. I pray you end up writing a book.
May 9th, 2006 I commented on the KEP:
What I am saying is that this issue has not been dealt with adequately. LDS apologists with their bullet proof testimonies can insist that it is adequate, and then hide behind the shrine of Hugh Nibley, but sooner or later they will have to come to grips with the fact that the elephant must be dealt with. If the Church would release the KEP photos so talented apologists can develop newer arguments, that would be a great help. In the meantime we are left with the same meaningless apologetic that has proved futile over the past decade and longer.
The majority of LDS don't even have the faintest clue about the details of this controversy, and couldn't tell you what the KEP were. The more it is publicized the more we lose. The virus is being released and we keep pretending we have a cure in Nibley. We don't, as evidenced by the number of people who leave because of this issue. What makes this harder to swallow than the Book of Mormon (for the fence-straddlers anyway), is that we do not have the Gold Plates, however we do have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated.
Will, posting as Provis, responded:
Obviously, this debate is going nowhere. Nor did I expect it to do otherwise. I only reiterate for the sake of those who may be following this exchange that your ENTIRE argument rests on the truth of the completeness of the KEP, which is far from a settled question.
You are obviously completely ignorant of the KEP...The "completeness" of the KEP?
I know precisely what the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are (contrary to your previous assertion). It's just that I view them as being utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. I've examined the contents of the KEP at length -- and doing so hasn't persuaded me one iota that the Book of Abraham is anything except what it claims to be.
Kevin makes a challenge for Will:
Provis, since you claim to know how "clearly" mistaken we are, let's dumb this down and see just how rash your dismissals really are. Please explain why we should believe the KEP do not indicate the Breathings text as the source document for the Book of Abraham, given the fact that:
1) The KEP shows Book of Abraham text with corresponding Egyptian characters off to the left.
Just answer me this one. Why is it wrong to deduce from this, that those involved in this "project" (six individuals including Joseph Smith) understood the Breathings papyrus to be related to the Book of Abraham. want your best logical answer. Not some psychoanalysis of me, nor a hyperlink to Nibley. I want you to demonstrate some logical and critical thought instead of weak attempts at being witty.
Will disappears. So after educating numerous apologists (two of which ended up leaving the faith along with myself) with photos and piquing the interest of the entire forum as a whole (which the mods obviously did NOT appreciate since it meant the scent of aposasy was in the air for many), Will decided that after I brought the discussion to a level well beyond his understanding, he'd email me to see if he could convince me to educate him further on the matter in private as to not embarrass himself further in public. Of course he said we'd exchange ideas and perspectives as if he had sometyhing to offer, but I knew Will had nothing of value to offer because he didn't even know what the KEP were until that same week, so I declined. Here is the email he sent days after his disappearance:
I apologize for what must seem like my "abdication" of the "debate" in the past several days. Quite simply, I have not had the time or opportunity to pursue it. I have, however, had the chance to quickly peruse the continuing discussion, in the process of which I have come to see that I was, perhaps, precipitous in my suggestion that you are teetering on the brink of apostasy. For that, I sincerely apologize. You must, however, understand that I haven't been associated with this message board long enough to have established a clear picture of its various participants, and my initial interpretation of your posts was that you were just another Metcalfe clone lurking in the alleyways of this forum in anticipation of the opportunity to waylay some naïve soul; crack him on the head, and walk away with his faith in your pocket and a smile on your face. I can see now I was mistaken in this.
This board is a high-voltage polemical atmosphere in many respects. I suppose that is part of its appeal. Within a few weeks of registering, I found myself locking horns with "The Dude", "Tarski", then Vogel followed by Metcalfe. The consequence of that "running of the gauntlet" pre-disposed me to the posture I assumed as we began our exchanges. I confess I suffer from a pronounced proclivity towards polemics when it comes to my dealings with characters of this sort. Try as I might, I just can't seem to keep my fingers from tapping out a thinly-veiled invective now and then. However, I might well note that you seem to suffer from the same weakness on occasion.
That said, I now perceive that your apparently honest desire is to come to a knowledge that arms you with a reasonable apologetic vis-à-vis the Book of Abraham – both for your own spiritual well-being as well as to adequately equip you as a defender of that faith. Although I don't believe the issue poses as severe a threat to our faith as you seem to do, I can still appreciate your desire to come to grips with the "elephant", as you are wont to term it.
May I then propose an alternative to the way we have pursued our discussion up to this point? Since, by its very nature, the message board foments polemical posturing, I would like to suggest that, for this particular topic, we transfer our exchanges to private e-mail. In this manner we might more profitably submit our ideas and criticisms one to another, and perhaps come to a greater understanding. In addition, our exchanges will not be cluttered by the considerable debris incident to communication via "thread".
I, too, have expended a considerable amount of time and effort exploring this contentious issue. And I'm not sure my true conclusions have been manifest via message board posts, in consequence of the difficulties to which I have just alluded. Perhaps you will, in course of time, conclude that I have nothing new to offer to the debate – in which case you may choose to terminate it at your own discretion. On the other hand, each of us may be enlightened in some small point along the way, in which case the effort will not have been entirely profitless.
I will, first of all, inform you that I am not inclined to find solace in any argument that entails "two inks", nor do I truly believe it likely that there is any "lost scroll". I haven't entirely rejected the possibility, but I consider it remote. The solution must lay elsewhere.
I would like to, if I may, pose to you two questions as a prelude to any continuing discussion of the matter.
1. Do you, or do you not believe that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers at least seem to indicate the possibility that the portion of the Book of Abraham to which the documents refer had already been produced prior to the production of any of the documents that constitute the KEP?
2. Do you, or do you not believe that the historically demonstrable nature of the relationship between Joseph Smith and Phelps, Cowdery, and Parrish is a factor to consider when attempting to formulate an explanation for what is represented by the KEP? This is not meant to be some kind of a trick question. I am referring to the well-known adversarial postures that evolved between these men in the period between their joining the Church and when they ultimately left it. And don't jump to conclusions about what I am suggesting with this question, because anything I may choose to suggest will take the form of a speculation rather than a firm conviction. I only pose the question as a way to ascertain your conclusions, assuming that you have pondered this very question before now (which I am confident you have).
I look forward to your response(s).
Again, I extend my regrets for the manner in which our acquaintance was initiated, but I extend my sincere desire to steer it to a more mutually-satisfying channel of communication.
Cedar City, UTschryver@infowest.com
P.S. I would invite you to also consider the arguments I put forth today in the "Book of Abraham" thread. I am sincerely interested in learning your opinions regarding those several issues I mention.
Also, Brian Hauglid later insisted the FAIR debate be taken to "private" email with Metcaalfe because he was tired of appearing the fool in public. When I posted some of the exchanges over here FAIR mods got furious and started threatening lawsuits for copyright infringement and Hauglid said he would never post there again unless the board changed its policy protecting all posts as the intellectual property of FAIR! FAIR even changed their sign up form to say new members give all information they post over to FAIR and cannot post elsewhere without express permission. What a bunch of idiots to think that they could swing that. So when I copied a deleted post of Hauglid's before he was able to delete it, he freaked out and left the forum altogether.