So are you offering to pay for Brent and his children's airfare and lodging?

To something Brent comes to each year anyway? No. He'll be here anyway.

What's gotten into you lately, Kish? Lighten up a bit. My position is that you are mimicking the behavior of anti-Mormonism, not that you are saying anything specific against the Church.

LOL. OK, Simon. Your resorting to fabrications, and then deceitfully modifying them after the fact is about me.

But to respond to your bogus contention--no, I am not mimicking anti-Mormonism. I am standing firm against the lie of Mopologetics, and pointing out that abandoning one's principles (note the nominal form) for a good cause is a self-defeating strategy, as well as perilous for the spirituality of the Mopologist who undertakes it.

And, one of the very worst Mopologetic lies is that criticism of Mopologia is either identical with anti-Mormonism, or close enough, that is must be deceitfully treated as though it were anti-Mormonism. Thus one regularly sees faithful members who are attacked by Mopologists with the false charge of apostasy. It is really sickening to watch, and yet Mopologists have no compunction about it.

Were you familiar with this problem? Do you condone these attacks? You are, after all, going down that road in your attacks on me.

No, and I wasn't attacking you. I've just noticed a drastic change in you lately -- a mean spirited one.

Really? You'll have to explain. I haven't noticed, but perhaps you can point out some of this nastiness.

Seriously?

The Lies of Simon Belmont, Mopologist

Are you really this stupid?

Simon, you lied! It is right there in b&w! I was blown away by your shamelessness.

Just want a straight answer.

First of all. You lie too. You name is not Kishkumen. Most of us here are liars.

Secondly, starting nasty threads about me because of my behavior is like me calling Joseph, schmo, thews, etc. bigots because of their anti-Mormon behavior. You chastised me more than once for that, yet you act exactly the same way.

My ministry may yet be able to help you.

All it takes is some basic reading skills and then just reading the thread. It has also been spelled out to you, but yet you still pretend not to get it.

Well the thread still exists on the front page, so the issue must be unresolved.

How is that lying?



Is that what you think you are doing. I don't think you are doing the Church any favors



That wasn't your question in which I asked just how stupid you must be. Do people really have to try and spell it out, again, to you that Will has said he will not debate Brent at this time. A little reading would have communicated this to you, but then you have shown an extreme amount of bias and hypocrisy in this thread.

Dude, if you don't want me to get up in your grill, don't be such a doofus. Don't tell obvious lies. Play your criticism of anti-Mormonism straight, and you'll garner more sympathy. But when you act like a douche bag, you don't win any friends, converts, or basic respect. Think about it!

Also, come up with your own damn ideas.

Hi folks,

hmmm...

Human reflex, response, or perhaps hubris, can be a curious study.

I continue to read stories about me that I know are false yet are told as truth. Some (e.g., Will) claim that I'm a technical writer, despite the fact that I've never been employed as a technical writer; some (e.g., Nomad) say I only have one child at home, even though I have two; still others (e.g., B.S.) claim that I visit UT annually, while in reality I haven't been to UT since 2006 (that's four years ago for the mathematically challenged). :)

If ignorance is bliss, I suspect that more than a few Metcalfe-watchers are enraptured in euphoric asininity.

(B.S.... er, I mean, S.B., or datacycle, or whatever quaint moniker you choose—as I've mentioned before, I have no interest in repartee with anonymous netizens of your ilk.)

Give me a day or so to once again accept Will's invitation—this time with a tad more candid clarity.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Geeze Brent, we were just getting used to his slumming back to the trailer park for some attention, now his head will shoot back up to the super stardom status of apologist extraordinaire knowing that you still care.
Dang might be a whole month or more now before he graces these back alleys, seeking out Paul's opposition again.

Hey, I don't think a debate between Metcalfe and Schryver is in season right now. It's just too early. Besides, if Schryver fails to pick up support he may just drop the whole thing and the Cipher theory will go away into obscurity. Metcalfe would then win by default without having to do anything. Like I've said, sit back and see who sides with Schyrver and who doesn't. An endorsement from Wade is a mere drop in a bucket. Schyrver has his work cut out for him in order to pick up real votes. It's a win or loose situation for him as the LDS Cipher election draws nigh. How do you think William will feel when he loses the election for Chief BofA Apologist? He will be in no mood for a debate.

Paul O

Typical behavior here. Hauglid was expressing reservations about a single item (the "fifth degree of the second part" line). That thing had nothing to do with Schryver's FAIR presentation. Nothing at all. It was one small observation among many in a post that dealt with the Williams Abraham manuscript.

Hauglid agrees with Schryver's thesis of the EAG dependency question.

You, sir, are an intentional deceiver of the ignorant masses here in Wonderland.[/quote]

The meaning of the KEP is that they are dependent on a previously received Book of Abraham.

Their purpose appears to be an exercise or an experiment in producing some kind of cipher conforming to something they (Smith, Phelps, Cowdery, etc.) believed to be like the "pure language" of the ancients.

There, that wasn't that hard.

What is your occupation?

How old are your children?

Just curious.