Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
cinepro
God
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by cinepro »

Wow. Will totally chickened out.

Brent is my hero for calling his bluff like that. We can only hope Will gets his shoelace caught on the gas pedal.

User avatar
Trevor
God
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Trevor »

The Dude wrote:The worst thing that could happen to Will is for him to proceed in the academic arena where his "theory" can be picked apart. The best thing would be for him to get on stage and put on a good show. It will minimize his weaknesses and maximize his strengths.


Yes, I think this is true. Will will feel a lot more comfortable with the friendly faces of his mentors and friends lifting him up as he uses the right phrases, gestures, and expressions to buoy up their collective confidence and leave them feeling good, regardless of the actual results. I am sure John Larsen would be too evenhanded and concerned about keeping it from becoming a circus to provide Will the space to ham it up the way he would like. Will is transparently a performer. I don't say this to suggest that his insights and work on the KEP should be ignored on that account. All I am saying is that being the showman he is, he wants to orchestrate a performance that will please his target audience.

His proposed format for his debate offer shows this quite clearly.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

User avatar
Nomad
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Nomad »

Trevor wrote:
The Dude wrote:The worst thing that could happen to Will is for him to proceed in the academic arena where his "theory" can be picked apart. The best thing would be for him to get on stage and put on a good show. It will minimize his weaknesses and maximize his strengths.


Yes, I think this is true. Will will feel a lot more comfortable with the friendly faces of his mentors and friends lifting him up as he uses the right phrases, gestures, and expressions to buoy up their collective confidence and leave them feeling good, regardless of the actual results. I am sure John Larsen would be too evenhanded and concerned about keeping it from becoming a circus to provide Will the space to ham it up the way he would like. Will is transparently a performer. I don't say this to suggest that his insights and work on the KEP should be ignored on that account. All I am saying is that being the showman he is, he wants to orchestrate a performance that will please his target audience.

His proposed format for his debate offer shows this quite clearly.

Why, if this debate were set for a venue like Sunstone, would Schryver necessarily have more "friends" in the audience than would Metcalfe?

There are fawning sycophants, and then there are the people here who take it to stratospheric heights.

All it looks like to me is that Schryver is accustomed to playing with the brown chips, and Metcalfe is only familiar with the white ones.

lol!
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)

User avatar
Trevor
God
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Trevor »

Nomad wrote:Why, if this debate were set for a venue like Sunstone, would Schryver necessarily have more "friends" in the audience than would Metcalfe?


He would certainly have more friends to look at in the audience than he would if he were on Skype. Tell me you aren't this stupid in real life. Surely you are just having us on.


Nomad wrote:All it looks like to me is that Schryver is accustomed to playing with the brown chips...


Oh, we all know well that Will is an old hand at throwing around brown chips...

Image
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

I am certain Metcalfe will never agree to debate Schryver if it means he (Metcalfe) has to actually publish something beforehand.

A ridiculous requirement which proves Will was never serious to begin with. Will said he'd agree to a debate in a heartbeat, but now that Brent has accepted, Will throws in a ____ of ridiculous requirements, pretending he is just following the traditional format. There is nothing that requires both participants to be published. And have you forgotten the fact that Will hasn't been published either? He gave his presentation to a bunch of TBMs who are too stupid to understand that good arguments actually require evidence and "strong positions" are best defined as those in which the author is not afraid to defend. Will refuses to answer criticisms of his presentation.
Metcalfe is clearly afraid to take any public position on the matter for fear of being shown in error down the road.

Do you know how idiotic this sounds? Brent is in the process of publishing a volume that incorporates input from a wide variety of scholars. I've spoken to Robert Ritner who is contributing to this volume.
As Schryver has noted, Metcalfe has never published a single word about the KEP

Neither has Schryver. Virtually everything Schryver has said on the KEP has been presented on the internet message boards. Why are you acting like he is a widely recognized and widely published scholar? Just a few years ago Will Schryver thought the KEP were the JP Papyri!! He is an infant compared to Metcalfe when it comes to this topic.
. No one has any idea what his interpretations are, other than the fact that he seems to support the old Ashment ideas.

The "old" Ashment ideas! Get educated moron. Stop mimicking Schryver's idiocy. Ideas don't become better just because they are newer. Do you even know who Ashment is? He worked closely with sensitive material as an employee for the Church Translation dept for many years, working alongside people like Dean Jesse. He knows these documents better than you and Will ever will. There is a reason Will only focused on 2% of the KEP. It is because if he revealed to his audience what the other 98% consists of, he knew there'd be no way in hell he'd be able to sell his idiotic enciphering theory.
What other explanation can there be for his years of silence on the matter if not fear of committing himself to a position?

The fact that unlike Schryver, he actually has a job? The fact that he is publishing a volume that includes numerous contributions from scholars who have yet to submit their final draft? Incidentally, Brent emailed me back in May after I asked him where the heck he has been. His response was:
My primary professional project is anticipated to be the best-selling console
game thus far (I'm working again tonight). This is what's currently absorbing
most of my waking hours..
http://kotaku.com/5521941/halo-reach-le ... l/gallery/
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx ... ;cid=25773
http://www.examiner.com/x-14825-Video-G ... s-revealed


What has Wilbur been working on since 2006?

No, Metcalfe is all blow and no show. Always has been.

He just accepted Will's challenge moron. I guess after years of waiting for Hauglid to respond to refutations, it became clear that FAIR was going to have to rely on Wilbur to do all the arguing.
That's not going to change now, especially now that Schryver has scorned his penny ante bet and put some real stakes on the table.

How in the hell has he "raised the stakes"? There is nothing more at stake now then there was before Metcalfe agreed to debate. All Wilbur did was make demands, trying to discourage Brent from debating him, requiring him to jump through his hoops so Wilbur could have more time to develop a script to follow, just as he did last week. To say it has to be in a live format is absurd. I remember Dan Peterson going off on a long rant about how he and most others at FARMS prefer internet debates, and don't like live debates at all because it is all about who is the better entertainer and not about who has the best arguments.

You people forget, I know William Schryver. He would hand Metcalfe his hat in a public debate like the one he has proposed. I don't know anyone better able to think on his feet than he is. No one.

Then you should be able to explain why Will can't even debate someone as stupid as myself? I've mopped the floors with this moron on too many occasions, and when he comes to address the refutation, he refuses to engage me or my rebuttals. He is an intellectual fraud, period. The fact that you "know him" (because you are him!) is haardly evidence of anything.
What it boils down to is track records and credibility. Will's track record of failed apologetics and deceptive tactics is enough to publish a volume about.

On the other side, Metcalfe has consistently put Book of Abraham apologetic attempts to shame over the past decade. He made mincemeat of Nibley, Gee and Hauglid, and of course, Schryver too, but not that you'd care to admit. It is all documented online and I am confident that any nonTBM would see what he is really about. Wilbur has yet to produce a single argument that deserves a debate. Hell he won't even respond to questions or criticisms online, so what makes you think he'd seriously consider it in a public forum? I think the only reason Metcalfe is even entertaining the idea of debating Will is because it has become obvious that he has taken over at FAIR as the lead spokesperson for Book of Abraham apologetics. He had hoped Hauglid would get back with him, but he chickened out too.

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

Geez, Will's article isn't even accepted for publication at this time, but he is insisting his debate opponent must have a rebuttal argument published before the debate can take place? That's a stall tactic. If Brent follows through, and it is some 18 months later, then Will will decline (read: weenie out) saying he's moved on and no longer mentally sharp on all the issues that would be presented. What a wuss.

User avatar
Nomad
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Nomad »

sock puppet wrote:Geez, Will's article isn't even accepted for publication at this time, but he is insisting his debate opponent must have a rebuttal argument published before the debate can take place? That's a stall tactic. If Brent follows through, and it is some 18 months later, then Will will decline (read: weenie out) saying he's moved on and no longer mentally sharp on all the issues that would be presented. What a wuss.

No, a "stall tactic" is when a man promises a "forthcoming" publication for 25 years, and we're still waiting ...

You know, I don't think I've ever enjoyed anything as much as watching the frothy-mouthed gyrations of the people on this message board since Schryver's FAIR speech. It's just nutty. Over the top nutty. I've never seen anything like it.
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

ROFL!

Will is still trying to make excuses as to why he won't debate Brent in a Podcast!

As I observed above, I have now presented a very abbreviated summary version of the full case I have yet to make in a formal journal article. When that article appears (which will occur within a reasonably short period of time), then Mr. Metcalfe will be able to assess it and respond to it in like fashion.


Why is he worried about what Metcalfe knows about his "upcoming"
article when the debate is over his presentation? If Will has more evidence he plans to use in his article, then it seems to me this gives Will an advantage since Metcalfe wouldn't know about it come debate time.

When he does so, then we will be provided with our two competing ideas, and thus able to debate.


More stupidity. We know what the two competing ideas are already. Why do they have to be crystallized in a publication?

Until then, we know nothing of Metcalfe's position on these matters, except some vague sense that he disagrees with my summary exposition as delivered at the FAIR conference.


Horse manure. We know exactly what Brent's position is and he made this explicit in his acceptance to debate. Brent said the debate would be over three questions:

Were Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2 dictated by Joseph Smith in early July 1835?

Are the three Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language dependent on Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2?

Was William W. Phelps—in lieu of Joseph Smith—the authorial mind behind of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project?


Brent has argued on these points for years, and the evidence he has put forth is far more compelling than anything Will has ever presented, published or otherwise. So this whole excuse about we have to find out what Brent's positions are first before engaging in debate", is nothing short of pathetic. It proves again that Will is just blowing smoke, stalling for time so he can figure out how to write his next script.

Who knows--it's entirely possible that, after I present my full case in printed format, he will be less inclined to disagree with it, thus making the debate unnecessary.


Will wants us to believe he is serious, but we all know this is ____ again. He said the same thing about Chris Smith and other critics accepting the arguments in his FAIR presentation, but we all saw how that theory fell flat along with the enciphering theory.

Or, it is entirely possible that his rebuttal will persuade me. Until then, we are engaging in conjecture in a vacuum of information.


Doesn't quite sound like the confidence of the dork who just said this morning: "In view of such manifest exegetical deficiencies, one might well wonder why Mr. Metcalfe is apparently so willing to publicly debate anything."

Just shut the hell up already and be a man about this! Stop with all these pathetic bluffs. You threw down the gauntlet, and now Brent picked it up. Face the music already and stop making excuses why you can't or shouldn't debate him now. After all your puffing and petulant taunting, you owe this to everyone who was recently converted to the delusion that you're some kind of apologetic superstar. Now is your chance to prove it.

Anyone can write a script and expect a naïve group of TBMs to swallow whatever faith promoting theory you forward. But to have it challenged publicly by someone smarter than you, well, that takes integrity... and balls.

Let us therefore allow this time for the discovery of the two positions. I'm certain that there are a great many people who are very anxious to finally see in print Mr. Metcalfe's long-awaited arguments vis-à-vis the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I know I am.


Translation = Let us pretend we don't already know Brent's positions, so I can keep stalling for more time to regroup and contrive yet another "gamechanger."

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

No, a "stall tactic" is when a man promises a "forthcoming" publication for 25 years, and we're still waiting ...


Why are you lying?

Brent's KEP publication was mentioned around the same time that Hauglid and the FAIRites started hyping theirs.

You know, I don't think I've ever enjoyed anything as much as watching the frothy-mouthed gyrations of the people on this message board since Schryver's FAIR speech. It's just nutty. Over the top nutty. I've never seen anything like it.


Yes I know. Valid refutations to stupid arguments generally aren't allowed at MADB, so it isn't surprising that you've never seen anything like it. Where is your hero now, anyway? Oh yeah, he is hiding in the Pundits thread where the mods protect him. He's even scared to face mild criticism from people in the discussion forum. BEcause once he shows his face, he ackolwedges that he's seen responses, and he is therefore expected to offer rebuttals and evidence to support his arguments. But instead all we get is hype about yet another upcoming presentation that will have all the evidence therein.

So people paid $80 to watch Will rant quickly with technical jargon and flashing slides, leaving most everyone scratching the heads as to what the hell it was he argued, but when critics analyze it slowly and then ask for specific pieces of evidences that actually vindicate his theory, he refers to some future publication that they'll have to pay money for ... again.

I'm so glad I didn't pay money to hear his presentation. You were all taken for a ride.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

Incidentally, Will doesn't know for a fact he will be published, and he was talking about debates before he had even written the thing, or expected to be published. Again, this is just another chapter in a story about an intellectual fraud.

Wilbur is the Wells Jakeman of the KEP.

User avatar
Nomad
Bishop
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Nomad »

I think we all understand why you would be so uncomfortable with the idea of Metcalfe having to actually stake out a position via a formal publication, seeing as how you've all been disappointed so many years in a row by his empty promises.

I know I have tried to find out what he thinks about this stuff, but I've never yet been able to find any evidence that he has actually taken a position on anything related to the KEP, other than repeating the vague arguments of people who came before him. I have never been able to discover a single original thought Metcalfe has had on the question of the KEP.

I did find an old archived thread from a defunct message board where he made Kevin Graham look stupid over some inconsequential point or two (mainly because Graham obviously did not know what he was talking about-surprise!).

But you shouldn't draw any undue conclusions from the fact that Metcalfe made Graham look dumb way back when. It's not like that represents a victory of any real magnitude. People who engage Graham, no matter the topic, always come out looking like the Olympic basketball "Dream Team" going up against Angola.

lol!
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.
-DrW about his friends (Link)

User avatar
Trevor
God
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Trevor »

A couple of questions worth mulling over:

1) If Metcalfe is no threat, then why won't Will debate him on Larsen's podcast? Shouldn't Will jump at the opportunity to flex his KEP muscles now that he has cut his chops on the presentation?

2) How difficult is it for an apologist to get published in a small LDS journal run by his associates? I mean, congrats and all to Will for all of his hard work and accomplishments, but this isn't exactly Church History that he is publishing his findings in. Maybe he should submit to that journal so his boasts over Metcalfe have real teeth.

My guess is that the acceptance of his piece at this LDS journal is largely a formality at this point and depends mostly on his being a cooperative person to work with on the editing.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

I think we all understand why you would be so uncomfortable with the idea of Metcalfe having to actually stake out a position via a formal publication, seeing as how you've all been disappointed so many years in a row by his empty promises.

Such as? Stop projecting here. Wilbur is the one who has been making promises, not Metcalfe. I can't recall a single "promise" by Metcalfe, ever. But every year since 2006 Will has been hyping some upcoming presentation that is supposed to refute the dictation theory, and now that he finally presents something, he doesn't even address the dictation theory, and he sure as hell doesn't deal with the ton of evidence in its favor. If the KEP manuscripts were dictated texts, then this undermines his silly theory of enciphering, which he himself admits doesn't make much sense.
I know I have tried to find out what he thinks about this stuff, but I've never yet been able to find any evidence that he has actually taken a position on anything related to the KEP

Then you're an idiot. You shouldn't hold the rest of us to your standard of comprehension.
other than repeating the vague arguments of people who came before him.

Will, stop the charade already. You have no idea how stupid this makes you look?
I have never been able to discover a single original thought Metcalfe has had on the question of the KEP.

Attacking Metcalfe in ignorance isn't going to save Wilbur from the tragedy of errors that riddles his recent past. Again, can you explain to us why Will lies so much? Do I really need to walk you down the Schryver hall of shame again? I did this with Simon and Maklelan and they immediately fled the scene, knowing perfectly well what an embarrassing situation he has put himself in. Seriously, if you want to defend Will you need to address his epic fails that throw a ____ cloud over his character and credibility. There is absolutely no reason anyone should believe anything this guy says.
I did find an old archived thread from a defunct message board where he made Kevin Graham look stupid over some inconsequential point or two (mainly because Graham obviously did not know what he was talking about-surprise!).

You're lying again, The fact is I was being coached via email by John Gee in that exchange, because Gee didn't have the balls to debate Metcalfe himself. Everyone knew this at the time. We discussed it on the FAIR e-list and I was the one who decided to relay Gee's arguments. I was also being coached by people like Tvetdness and McGuire. No one wanted to touch the KEP issue with a ten foot pole because no one knew much about it. Metcalfe was clearly the authority on this subject. Nibley was dead and John Gee had not examined them. So if he wasn't the authority, then who was? I realized shortly afterwards that I was being used as a patsy, and that John Gee was full of ____. "Inconsequential point" my ass. He decimated key points that Gee lied about in his recent publication. And the fact that you bring this up proves again that you and Will are one and the same. You don't just accidentally come across archived exchanges in an unsearchable defunct message forum. You have them handed to you by someone like Schryver who keeps them under his pillow in case he needs a red herring to avoid dealing with the dozen or so embarrassing points I raise.
But you shouldn't draw any undue conclusions from the fact that Metcalfe made Graham look dumb way back when.

The best thing that ever happened to me. And I proved that among the herd of apologists, I was the only reasonable one because I was willing to change my mind in light of evidence. You guys were more interested in remaining loyal to the herd. Truth is secondary in apologetics, this I learned the hard way.
It's not like that represents a victory of any real magnitude. People who engage Graham, no matter the topic, always come out looking like the Olympic basketball "Dream Team" going up against Angola.

Cute diversion, but you run back to 2003 and skip over everything from that point forward where Book of Abraham apologetics has been an embarrassing failure. You guys tried attacking Metcalfe with Gee, and he pummeled him. You tried it with Hauglid, and he failed too. Then you tried it with Wilbur, and well, Metlcafe has already been refuting him for years now. Just go look up all the exchanges at MADB. I intend to post an encyclopedia to the Book of Abraham hall of shame in the neaar future. I have saved all of the Book of Abraham/KEP exchanges, and the number of times Wilbur has been forced to change his position is just astounding. I can't think of aa single instance of Metcalfe being forced to change his position. Not once. What he argues now is what he's argues for many years. You're just too stupid to understand what that is, and Hauglid and Wilbur are too scared to share with their audiences what the critical position entails. Instead they beat up straw men at their conferences just to make themselves look better.
Last edited by Kevin Graham on Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cinepro
God
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by cinepro »

Nomad wrote:I think we all understand why you would be so uncomfortable with the idea of Metcalfe having to actually stake out a position via a formal publication, seeing as how you've all been disappointed so many years in a row by his empty promises.



Why would Metcalfe need to "stake out a position" in a formal publication? Did you miss this part of the original post?

I'd like our discussion to focus on three questions:

- Were Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2 dictated by Joseph Smith in early July 1835?

- Are the three Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language dependent on Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2?

- Was William W. Phelps—in lieu of Joseph Smith—the authorial mind behind of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project?

If I understand your thesis, you would answer each of these questions in the affirmative. I, rather obviously, disagree. Still, I'm confident that we can have a civil exchange of ideas.


Honestly, I'm a little confused. Is the worry on Will's part that Metcalfe isn't knowledgeable enough, or is too knowledgeable? Why would it matter if Metcalfe has published elsewhere?

I can understand Will not wanting to spend time debating every yahoo on the interwebs that challenges him to a duel. But he is the one who has gone on record as saying "I welcome such an oppurtunity..." to debate Brent.

I haven't formed an opinion on the content of Will's presentation because I haven't spent time studying it, and the parts I have seen made no sense to me. But running scared from a debate with Brent (after previously blustering that he would "welcome" such an exchange) indicates to me that, to some degree, the emperor has no clothes. And he knows it.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

Greg Taggart is a BYU professor? I thought he was a teenager! Seriously.

This guy has the intellectual stamina of Forrest Gump and apparently the integrity of John Gee. He is over at MAD lying about Brent's employment, saying Brent has been working on his gaming project for 25 years.

Hey Greg, why don't you man up and come over here instead of hiding out behind Wilbur in pundits? You're obvioulsy reading this.

You coward.

Only complete fools would defend Will at this level. The guy is a coward who refuses to debate Brent. Period. Demanding publication is absurd, especially since among the two of them, only Brent has been published! Greg and Nomad are making all kinds of excuses and trying to divert attention away from Will's cowardice by bringing up the popular "Brent has been making promises for 25 years" gambit. They're obviously not above lying for him either. What a classless lot you guys are. I'm sooo glad I got out of it when that window of enlightenment was opened. I think if i had held on any longer, I might have been sucked into the deep hole of apologetic delusion just like you guys are.

MrStakhanovite
Anti-Mormon
Posts: 5248
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by MrStakhanovite »

I don't understand the fear of a simple debate on a Podcast. It's not like there are going to be judges there, counting the drops and making flow charts. It is the perfect informal setting for a test run.

There is little to lose and much to gain.






Also, the requirement for a published work prior to the debate seems silly to me. It's not like Brent is some stranger who showed up out of no where.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," Oct 14 2006, available from http://mormonscripturestudies.com/exmo2 ... online.doc

I remember Brent sending me a copy of this beforehand. It was presented at the Ex-Mormon conference shortly after Brian Hauglid did his piece at the FAIR conference.

So both Will and Brent have presented KEP arguments at conferences.

Both Will and Brent have publications forthcoming.

Only Brent has actually been published, which includes two books related to Mormonism.

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Darth J »

My primary professional project is anticipated to be the best-selling console
game thus far (I'm working again tonight). This is what's currently absorbing
most of my waking hours..
http://kotaku.com/5521941/halo-reach-le ... l/gallery/
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx ... ;cid=25773
http://www.examiner.com/x-14825-Video-G ... s-revealed


You know how video games sometimes have Easter eggs in various places? I wonder if he could stick one of the Facsimiles somewhere on a level in Reach.

Or maybe someone on the Covenant could yell, "I am not a slave!" Especially if it were a Jackal who said this.

(Paul O., at least, may understand this reference.)

User avatar
Trevor
God
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Trevor »

Kevin Graham wrote:Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," Oct 14 2006, available from http://mormonscripturestudies.com/exmo2 ... online.doc

I remember Brent sending me a copy of this beforehand. It was presented at the Ex-Mormon conference shortly after Brian Hauglid did his piece at the FAIR conference.

So both Will and Brent have presented KEP arguments at conferences.

Both Will and Brent have publications forthcoming.

Only Brent has actually been published, which includes two books related to Mormonism.


Well, surely Will will agree to the debate with Brent on Larsen's podcast. He doesn't really have a good excuse not to. If he won't do it, then it will look really bad.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

Trevor wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Re-Visioning the Book of Abraham: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics," Oct 14 2006, available from http://mormonscripturestudies.com/exmo2 ... online.doc

I remember Brent sending me a copy of this beforehand. It was presented at the Ex-Mormon conference shortly after Brian Hauglid did his piece at the FAIR conference.

So both Will and Brent have presented KEP arguments at conferences.

Both Will and Brent have publications forthcoming.

Only Brent has actually been published, which includes two books related to Mormonism.


Well, surely Will will agree to the debate with Brent on Larsen's podcast. He doesn't really have a good excuse not to. If he won't do it, then it will look really bad.

Look really bad? It looks like Will is just chicken s***.

User avatar
Enuma Elish
Regional Representative
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:18 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Enuma Elish »

Hello Friends,

Ultimately, whether Will is right or wrong in his theory, Will has put in a considerable amount of time and effort in an attempt to understand the KEP. Will is an extremely bright individual with an interesting theory that deserves further consideration. I have no doubt that he will successfully publish an article detailing his views, as well he should.

A publication is an exciting accomplishment that represents considerable effort on the part of the author. It’s something to be proud of.

If I was in Will’s shoes, I wouldn’t want to give away too much of my work online or in a podcast before the publication was officially released. Hence, I would avoid answering the critics of my theory in detail until after the publication. Especially since these issues pertaining to Mormonism have the propensity to evoke considerable emotion from both sides.

I suspect that after Will’s article is published he will feel much more comfortable engaging any arguments raised against his theory. In the meantime, those of us who are interested in this issue will simply need to exercise a little bit of patience.
"We know when we understand: Almighty god is a living man"--Bob Marley

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: moksha and 27 guests