Oh, but he does.



Will's target audience:

I like green eggs and ham, Sam-I-am.

Schryver really knows how to play the people on this board like a fiddle. I just sit back and laugh as I watch him work you guys. He kind of reminds me of the way Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) used to drum up interest in his fights in the weeks beforehand.

I wonder how many critics and former LDS are going to go see Schryver at the FAIR conference just because they hope to be there to watch him fall on his face? He's building the interest and anticipation with friends and foes alike, and I wouldn't be surprised to see his bold prediction about breaking FAIR conference attendance records come true.

I tell you what would really pack them in: arrange a formal public debate between Schryver and Metcalfe, like with Ashment and Nibley way back when. Like maybe at a Sunstone conference. Although I seriously doubt Metcalfe would ever agree to it. It would be way too risky for him. Still, I'd love to see it happen. I'd make a point of coming out there to watch it myself.

A winking joke means getting played? heh. Who knew?



Not me. I'll be on the beach in LA that week. I'm reserving judgment on Will's presentation until he actually gives it. Knowing Will, I am quite sure he's spent a lot of time and effort on this stuff, and it will be interesting to see what comes of it. But this isn't Armageddon, you know.



If nothing else, Will has successfully taken the focus away from the issues to the personalities of the various people who know anything about the Book of Abraham. After all, he's got you convinced that there's some big feud going on between Metcalfe and Will.

Uh, I suspect every year is a "record breaking" year in conference attendance. Fair is only getting bigger and more popular with each passing year. I didn't see Will's prediction, but did he say it would be packed because of his presentation?



I wouldn't pay money to watch that massacre, and I highly doubt Will would ever accept a debate offer with Metcalfe.



And you think Will would? I challenged Will to debate in the past and he always ran away. But you think Metcalfe is scared to debate him?



Only in the sense that people would wonder why someone like Metcalfe decided to condescend to Schryver's level. It is clear Metcalfe has already scared away Gee and Hauglid.

It is funny to see Will use his sock puppet to refer to himself as a Muhammed Ali!

ROFL!

Is there really any doubt that Nomad and Will Schryver are the same? Nomad has posted only six times and it is always in defense of Schryver.

Nomad posts on the MAD boards. He is in the same vein as Brenda IMO; sideline cheerleader.

I appreciate my friend Nomad coming to my defense on this board, and I admire him for otherwise resisting the urge to post here on any other basis.

(I also remember how he and Mark Wright took Beastlie to the woodshed last year on Mesoamerican stuff!)

As for his desire to see a debate between me and Metcalfe on the topic of the meaning and purpose of the KEP, I have to agree with him that I don't believe Brent would consent to such a thing. That said, lest there be any question whatsoever, I would welcome such an opportunity. Let Metcalfe publish his rebuttal to the arguments I present in August (even an e-publication of his counter-arguments would suffice), and then we can work out the terms and conditions of a public debate where we would each defend our respective arguments. I would consent to such an arrangement in a heartbeat.

Do you ever feel lonely, Will?

Likewise, I would consent to a matchup between myself and Steven Segall. I would consent to that in a heartbeat!

You see, it is easy to make claims like this when you know damn well it will never happen because the other person doesn't consider you a worthy opponent to begin with. I mean really, what on God's green earth would make anyone believe William "circle-jerk" Schryver has the faintest clue what he's talking about on this subject? He can't even debate me, and I'm not particularly bright. The Schryver hall of shame sports dozens of refutations and examples where he's been proved a liar at worst and a sloppy apologist at best.

Metcalfe came online and debated Brian Hauglid back in the fall of 2006. Hauglid insisted the debate be taken to private email exchanges and then eventually abandoned it. Brent mopped the floors with him and Brian eventually admitted that he was "green" on the subject and wasn't really prepared for the challenge. Metcalfe has nothing to prove anymore.

So what makes Will any more prepared than Brian was?

Cracker Graham:

The only people who believe I know what I'm talking about are those who actually know something about the subject, and who are familiar with my findings.

Unfortunately, you fail on both counts.

At any rate, I admit that the notion of a Schryver/Metcalfe debate is merely a fleeting fantasy. I suspect that, after a suitable period of silence, he'll finally just quietly agree with my findings and that will be the end of that.

You know, Will, one of the things I really admire about you is your unflagging self-confidence. I wish I had more of that.

I mean like at night, when it is quiet. Do you feel lonely?

Isn't it called narcissism? I think Mo'ism breeds it - particularly in men.

So, given all the extant papyri remaining, and all the symbols, jots, tittles, scribbles, writings, fascimiles and lacuna coils they contain, have you identified even a single one that matches to what is contained in the Book of Abraham?

You seem to be delving into an endless fractal of irrelevant minutiae leading nowhere in particular.

If Will were a better sport, I'd be more interested in buying publications and attending conferences (if it can be done online, that is). But the way he behaves online makes me unwilling to support him in his efforts on principle. And it ain't a Mormon/non-mormon thing for me. I recently recommended a list of books to a friend and the overwhelming majority were written by believing members (Bushman, Buerger, Compton, and heck, Quinn).

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."

At any rate, I only have such confidence when I feel it is warranted.

In high school, I was a champion debater on a high school team that was dominant in the "sport" every year I was there. Although I was also a good basketball player, I preferred debate to basketball. It was much more competitive and rewarding. Of course, one thing that was necessary, as a debater, was to learn how to successfully argue both sides of any proposition. But I quickly discovered that it was always much easier to defend the arguments that had the best supporting evidence. (No surprise there!)

Having a strong case was always a greater advantage than being a good debater. If I have confidence when it comes to my views on the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, it's because I feel that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on my side.

I have no idea what this even means. To me, it makes no sense at all.


Frankly, you haven't the slightest idea what I'm "delving into." No one does. Yet. I have never yet, in a public setting, divulged the focus and nature of my research into the KEP. That has been by design. Not that I haven't made peripheral findings and argued them online. I most certainly have. The Pundit's forum on the MAD board contains several such threads. It's just that none of those things have anything to do with what has been my primary research focus.

Believe me, I will not be dealing with "an endless fractal of irrelevant minutiae." Quite to the contrary, I have a relatively simple case to make, and I intend to make it in as accessible a fashion as I can, so that even those previously unaware of the nature of the Book of Abraham/KEP controversy can understand.

I will not prove that the Book of Abraham is an authentic translation of an Egyptian source. That is impossible.

I will not prove that Joseph Smith knew how to decipher Egyptian script. I am convinced he did not.

I will not prove that the Book of Abraham is divine scripture. That is also impossible.

But I believe I will demonstrate its true relationship to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and in the process I will disprove a large proportion of the arguments that have been made by Mormon critics for the past 40 years. After all is said and done, I will be genuinely surprised if a substantial number of Mormon critics do not admit that the case I will have made appears to be extremely solid--based in logic, valid reasoning, and (most of all) evidence.

I don't even remember a Mark Wright, but I can tell you that Nomad wasn't well enough informed to ever take me to the "woodshed." Nomad actually thinks that a Mesoamerican polity of around a million people could feasibly be considered "minor."

How about you, Will? Is that a minor Mesoamerican polity?

If you do not automatically know the answer to that question, you're also ill-informed on Mesoamerica - too ill-informed to judge who took whom to the woodshed on the issue.

Like I said, I wish I had some of that. I wasn't being sarcastic.



True enough. Difficult as it may be to believe, I was also an accomplished debater (Lincoln-Douglas, mostly) in high school, winning the district championship and state-qualifying tournament, and I did quite well in the state tournament (California, that is). So I know something about tactics and the necessity of good evidence.

A couple of times I participated in bombastic debate, which I am often reminded of when I read some of your posts. :-)



As I said, I'm reserving judgment until I see what you've come up with, but I genuinely hope you are right in that you have added knowledge and understanding to this topic.

A "better sport?"

LOL!

Appearing as it does on this particular message board, that is just about bursting with irony.

I'm not here to win a sportsmanship award nor to be named Mr. Congeniality (although, being aware as I am of my inimitable charm and charisma, I would certainly not be surprised if I were voted the latter). lol

Nope, I'm here to make war on the propaganda of apostasy, and I believe in the William Tecumseh Sherman brand of war when it comes to such things--with the notable difference that he was willing to take prisoners during his march through the rebel homeland. I'm not. ;-)