Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

Simon Belmont wrote:
No, beastie. I am trying to figure out why you people worship this liar as some sort of God.


No one worships him, but i think you know that. You call him a liar but don't provide evidence of any lie.

He said he has never been employed as a technical writer, yet to be a technical editor (his current employment) he would have had to have been a technical writer first.


Again provide specifics on why someone needs be employed as a technical writer before they can be employed as a technical editor. You really are a hypocrite and one of the stupidest posters I have seen on this board.
42

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

Themis wrote:Again provide specifics on why someone needs be employed as a technical writer before they can be employed as a technical editor. You really are a hypocrite and one of the stupidest posters I have seen on this board.


I wonder how it feels to have someone disrespecting your God... oh wait.

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

Simon Belmont wrote:
I wonder how it feels to have someone disrespecting your God... oh wait.


I didn't think you would be able to answer the question, but do you're usual making false accusations. Can you at least provide evdience of where I disrespected anyone's belief in their God. Remember not believing the same does not count.
42

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13030
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

I wonder how it feels to have someone disrespecting your God... oh wait.


Is your God so pathetic that it needs anti-intellectual morons like you defending it? Stop pretending you're in this for some noble purpose of protecting your God from insult. This is all about protecting the things that give you your special identity as an elect member of God's Church. What makes you so much more important and special in God's eyes. Very little is unselfish in the apologetic agenda.

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

Kevin Graham wrote:Is your God so pathetic that it needs anti-intellectual morons like you defending it? Stop pretending you're in this for some noble purpose of protecting your God from insult. This is all about protecting the things that give you your special identity as an elect member of God's Church. What makes you so much more important and special in God's eyes. Very little is unselfish in the apologetic agenda.



Angry McAngerton,

What makes you so special in Brent Metcalfe's eyes

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20909
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

Simon Belmont wrote:What makes you so special in Brent Metcalfe's eyes


Jealous, Simon?
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13030
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kevin Graham »

Consider my point proved..

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Jesus H. Christ! I thank my lucky stars that I was smart enough to get out of the Moron church. Thank you Jesus!

Goddamnit -- the BofA is holy Joe's week old underwear.

Paul O

Simon Belmont

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Simon Belmont »

Kevin Graham wrote:Consider my point proved..



ROFL!!!!

onandagus
High Priest
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by onandagus »

Simon,

There are two possibilities:

1) Brent has for years been telling people--like me some six years ago--that he's a technical editor and posting this online, and has that on his current LinkedIn profile, yet mysteriously had "technical writer" on his profile a month ago, even though he hasn't visit this profile to add friends (like me) as contacts in many moons.

Or...

2) You read "technical editor" at L.inkedIn but, having a fallible human memory, recalled it as 'technical writer."

Your idea, by the way, that someone must first be a technical writer in order to be a technical editor seems a tad rigid. Is this specified in some Technical Editor's Code somewhere?

It's silly to accuse someone else of a mote of dishonesty without first examining one's own eye for beams of ignorance and fallibility. Or at least somebody once said so.

Don
Last edited by onandagus on Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Don,

Simon doesn't care. He's had a vendetta against Brent since 2003 or thereabouts. Nothing you say now is going to dissuade him.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Don,

Simon doesn't care. He's had a vendetta against Brent since 2003 or thereabouts. Nothing you say now is going to dissuade him.


I have faith that he will fall from grace. Watching the saints fall from grace is like chapel Mormons having joy in attending convert baptisms.

Oh the irony of the whole thing! If we can get Simon to deny his testimony of the Facsimile No. 3 that would be joyous to my soul.

How about it Simon? Will you deny the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? Please?

Paul O

onandagus
High Priest
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by onandagus »

William Schryver wrote:I saw Don's post. I doubt Don read my post in which it is asserted I questioned his faithfulness. If he did, and discerned therein what is imputed to me by others, then I am disappointed that he would permit the biases of others to infect his own views. In any event, I don't question Don's newly-restored faith. Indeed, I think I have a fairly good feel for its basis, and I am conscious of nothing within my own understanding of "acceptable" that is offended by what I apprehend as Don's walk of faith at this juncture of his life. In personal conversation, I found Don to be sincere, thoughtful, and amenable to questioning his assumptions and predisposed perspectives.


Thank you, Will, for these personal observations and this affirmation of my renewed faith and return to the church.

My comments earlier were in response to this statement:

That Don (I'm assuming here, of course) has now apparently concluded that my case for dependency is unsupportable is a disturbing development, from my perspective. Because, to date, the only people who have attempted to contest the arguments/evidence I have presented in that respect are those with an underlying agenda to discredit Joseph Smith and the church he founded.


I didn't take this as an accusation of lost or distorted faith on my part but did interpret it as a kind of wondering, as if you were thinking outloud, whether my thoughts on direction of dependence between the texts indicated that I was headed in the direction of persons "with an underlying agenda to discredit Joseph Smith" who had taken superficially similar approaches. I may have been mistaken in this reading. Perhaps you were saying my thoughts were distrubing for other reasons (e.g., they would reflect poorly on your theory ;-) ).

In any case, I wasn't and am not offended by what you said; but I was concerned that the line of thought I perceived there could lead to rejecting me as a Latter-day Saint on non-essential and even spiritually trivial grounds. This would be a source of great disappointment to me. I have been so warmly welcomed back to the church. No one has treated me as less of a Latter-day Saint now because of my former years of not being one, and even of criticizing LDS faith claims. To the contrary, many of my again-fellow saints have killed the metaphorical fatted calf to celebrate my return. I had feared being kept at a distance or looked askance at because of my unbelieving past. The actual, welcoming response has been one of the most profoundly moving experiences of my life.

Imagining some taking a contrary approach and not accepting my sincere, if possibly in some ways idiosyncratic, journey as a Latter-day Saint plays on my fears and, as it think it would anyone in my place, saddens me. It wouldn’t be the end of the world: I would know where I stand even if others didn’t. But, of course, I’m going to have strong preferences. If someone (unlike you, as expressed above) did have questions about my faith, I'd prefer they really think through whether their doubts were based on my rejecting anything fundamental to LDS belief and life and that, if they feel they need, they talk with me about these concerns directly, rather than express them, even offhandedly, in public.

You’ve stated that you didn’t intend to call this into question, and I see no point in arguing with someone about the meaning of their own words. You surely know your views better than anyone else. And I appreciate your fellowship and affirmation of my faith and journey to where I’m at.

Cheers,

Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011

onandagus
High Priest
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by onandagus »

Paul Osborne wrote:How about it Simon? Will you deny the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? Please?

Paul O


Actually, Paul, I think at this point you're supposed to offer him money. And you're supposed to be named Simon, or maye Zeezrom.

;-)

Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by beastie »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Don,

Simon doesn't care. He's had a vendetta against Brent since 2003 or thereabouts. Nothing you say now is going to dissuade him.


Indeed. "Datacycle" has very few posts on ZLMB to speak of, but it's obvious he was going after Brent from the start, and engaged in the same pathetic tactics there as he does here. Look at this one old ZLMB conversation for example:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/6344

The thread began with cinepro asking some simple questions about the Book of Mormon, specifically of "morgbot" who declined to answer (who apparently had demanded Brent answer some questions on a previous thread). Instead, he focused the conversation on Brent:

Harmony asked:
I wonder if the faithful LDS posters who insist upon answers to their questions will insist that Morgbot answer these?


Morgbot replied:
No. But the difference is, I haven't edited a book on the topic, sponsored Sunstone sessions on the topic, set up a web page on the topic, gone on the media discussing the topic, etc.


Brent corrected morgbot thusly:
I haven't "edited a book on the topic," I co-edited a book that contained a single essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon. I haven't "sponsored Sunstone sessions [pl.] on the topic," I moderated a single Sunstone panel on DNA and the Book of Mormon that comprised one critic and two panelists with an apologetic bent. I haven't "set up a web page on the topic," I posted an essay authored by Tom Murphy on Mormon Scripture Studies: An E-Journal of Critical Thought. Yes, I have "gone on the media discussing the topic." Wow. One out of four.


to which datacycle, Simon, responded:
Actually, Brent, that is four out of four.

[Brent]I haven't "edited a book on the topic," I co-edited a book that contained a single essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Co-editing is editing, Brent.

[Brent]I haven't "sponsored Sunstone sessions [pl.] on the topic," I moderated a single Sunstone panel on DNA and the Book of Mormon that comprised one critic and two panelists with an apologetic bent.

Same thing. You were a big part of a Sunstone event on the topic.


[Brent]I haven't "set up a web page on the topic," I posted an essay authored by Tom Murphy on Mormon Scripture Studies: An E-Journal of Critical Thought. Yes, I have "gone on the media discussing the topic." Wow. One out of four.

Perhaps you are unaware of that website called Mormon Scripture Studies?


This demonstrates that Simon is not capable of careful thought and analysis, at least when it comes to Brent, for whatever reason. Simon is not able to recognize the distinction between editing an entire book on the topic of the Book of Mormon and DNA and editing a book that contains ONE ESSAY on the topic. Simon is not able to recognize the distinction between "sponsoring Sunstone sessions" on the topic and moderating ONE panel on the topic. Simon is not able to recognize the difference between "setting up a webpage on the topic" and hosting ONE essay on the topic on his webpage.

In reviewing how long-lasting Simon's stupid attacks against Brent are, and how inane those attacks are, I have to conclude that Simon is someone who has a personal grudge against Brent that probably has nothing to do with internet boards which makes him blind with bias. If that is not the case, then Simon is simply not very intelligent and just tries to support more intelligent defenders of the faith with inane comments that are not very discerning or astute. But that wouldn't explain his focus on Brent, so I tend to believe he bears a personal grudge towards Brent.

I do not blame Brent in the least for refusing to interact with him. Simon's behavior towards Brent has entered the creepy realm.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by harmony »

beastie wrote: But that wouldn't explain his focus on Brent, so I tend to believe he bears a personal grudge towards Brent.


Perhaps Simon finds Brent to be physically overwhelming and is reacting like many physically small men react. Banty Rooster Syndrome kind of thing?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

Don:
I didn't take this as an accusation of lost or distorted faith on my part but did interpret it as a kind of wondering, as if you were thinking outloud, whether my thoughts on direction of dependence between the texts indicated that I was headed in the direction of persons "with an underlying agenda to discredit Joseph Smith" who had taken superficially similar approaches.

Although this was the (almost instantaneously reached) conclusion of the crowd here, it is 100% incorrect, and never entered my mind as I composed the post in question.

I may have been mistaken in this reading. Perhaps you were saying my thoughts were distrubing for other reasons (e.g., they would reflect poorly on your theory ;-) ).

This, on the other hand (albeit not 100% precise) comes much closer to describing the intent of my statement you cited above. Perhaps my choice of the word "disburbing" was the hinge upon which the misunderstanding occurred. Or (and this is much more likely, given it constitutes the modus operandi here when it comes to yours truly) I was deliberately misrepresented with malicious intent, and that deliberate misrepresentation ultimately influenced your perspective.

In any case, since I have yet to hear any negative assessments of my findings from one not already predisposed to reject all things apologetic, your negative assessment (should you, indeed, have one) would be the first expressed by a "believer." Since I have anxiously (and very sincerely) sought such thoughtful criticisms, I would welcome yours. Since I have long respected your generally objective and well-considered thoughts on such issues, the fact that you discern flaws where no one else yet has does portend a "disturbing" development--hence my interest in your substantive objections. Even so, I would prefer our communications on this topic to occur via private communication. I think you know how to reach me, should you be so inclined.

Sincerely,

-WS
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

onandagus
High Priest
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by onandagus »

Will,

I badly misinterpreted your comment. :-( And I apologize for that. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on direction of dependence with you. This hasn't been an area of emphasis for me; so my thoughts may not be of great detail and heft, but I would be willing to discuss the issue. I'll be most brushed up on it when I get back to work on the translation chronology, perhaps over Christmas break. And I'd be willing to offer critique of your more fully laid out case, of which I got only a foretaste at the FAIR conference.

Don
"I’ve known Don a long time and have critiqued his previous work and have to say that he does much better as a believer than a critic."
- Dan Vogel, August 8, 2011

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by harmony »

I'm still not clear as to what difference the KEP, etc. makes, since we know the papyri doesn't come close to matching the Book of Abraham.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

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 »

onandagus wrote:Will,

I badly misinterpreted your comment. :-( And I apologize for that. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on direction of dependence with you. This hasn't been an area of emphasis for me; so my thoughts may not be of great detail and heft, but I would be willing to discuss the issue. I'll be most brushed up on it when I get back to work on the translation chronology, perhaps over Christmas break. And I'd be willing to offer critique of your more fully laid out case, of which I got only a foretaste at the FAIR conference.

Don

My suspicions, Don, are that you and the other FAIR attendees got more than a foretaste. Will's inability to identify any other factors or evidences for his claimed direction of dependence suggests you got the 'whole enchilada' at FAIR. That is, Will noted that both texts share a fair number of 'substantial'/'unique' pronouns (which of itself does not indicate the direction(s) of dependence, just that there was some dependence) and that the Book of Abraham has a more developed story than does the EAllusion&G--which one would expect if the EAllusion&G were in essence work papers of Joseph Smith and scribes to the eventual production of the Book of Abraham. Think along the lines of the Book of Abraham being the final of a series of expansions of the story in development with the first four expansions being contained in the EAllusion&G itself as they went from the first degree to the second, and so on until the fifth degree. Indeed, the Book of Abraham appears to be the 6th degree of the EAllusion&G, woven into a single narrative.

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

onandagus wrote:
Paul Osborne wrote:How about it Simon? Will you deny the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? Please?

Paul O


Actually, Paul, I think at this point you're supposed to offer him money. And you're supposed to be named Simon, or maye Zeezrom.

;-)

Don


Well then, how about you, Don? Will you deny the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? Imagine living back in Nauvoo and talking to the saints about them. The Mormon understanding of the Facsimile was on a caveman level.

Paul O

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests