KEP Debate in Pundits

[_dartagnan]

Chris, you really need to push Will into a corner and get him to buck up and explain why the EAG used for Abr 1:1-3 was "impossible." He always does this crap. He just declares something a a fact and never even explains why he thinks it is so.

[_cksalmon]

Chris, you really need to push Will into a corner and get him to buck up and explain why the EAG used for Abr 1:1-3 was "impossible." He always does this crap. He just declares something a a fact and never even explains why he thinks it is so.

Au contraire!

He's explained this sort of thing over and over again: No one really understands the material unless that person agrees with him. And, you live in a trailer park and are probably drinking alcohol right now and arranging for some sort of mob violence.

Will is, hands down, one of the most arrogant, self-loving, and certainly the most vulgar, LDS apologist I've seen badger the Interwebs.

Chris

PS. Which is to say, if Schryver truly embodies the Restored Gospel, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

[_dartagnan]

The initial revelation for the Book of Abraham (esp. Abraham 1-2:18) came months before the KEP were created. Therefore, the four Book of Abraham MSS evidence some other project not related to the actual translation.

Can anyone guess who made this bone-headed comment two years ago in June?

Brian Hauglid!

No, I'm not kidding.

You see, Brian thought the entire Book of Abraham was "revealed" months before the fall of 1835!

Why? Because of apologetic expediency. It had to be. That way he could just assert the KEP must have represented something entirely different that dictation manuscripts. If they predate the revelation, then they'd have to be copies! So apologists needed these to be copies as much as they needed anything. John Gee tried pulling this stunt too, and nobody on the LDS questioned his reasoning. Probably because he didn't provide any. A feel-good assertion is usually all that's required.

As I flip through all the previous Book of Abraham threads at FAIR, I just can't get over the amount of ignorance displayed by the guys who are supposed to be leading the LDS apologetic agenda. Will makes the dumbest remarks of them all, but everyone knew he was a sciolist from the get-go. Even today nobody over there seems to think he has a clue.

But my point here is that Brian didn't read anything at the time except Nibley. He declares as fact, something that is quite easily refuted by Joseph Smith's own words. This was just a month before Brian prepared his 2006 FAIR presentation on the KEP, when he declared with bombastic certitude, that Joseph Smith "could not have" dictated these mss. This just goes to proves he went in with an agenda and his mind already made up, long before he ever took the time to study the matter properly. Now he has a ton of embarrassing comments and blatant errors to answer for before anyone takes him seriously again.

Is this going to be chalked up as another example of the "fluxive nature of academia"?

[_TrashcanMan79]

Will is, hands down, one of the most arrogant, self-loving, and certainly the most vulgar, LDS apologist I've seen badger the Interwebs.

Which is to say, if Schryver truly embodies the Restored Gospel, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

You made Will's MAD sig line. Congrats.

[_cksalmon]

Will is, hands down, one of the most arrogant, self-loving, and certainly the most vulgar, LDS apologist I've seen badger the Interwebs.

Which is to say, if Schryver truly embodies the Restored Gospel, I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

You made Will's MAD sig line. Congrats.

That's unfortunate, as it almost surely means he takes it in a "haha-look-what-some-critic-said-about-me" way, rather than asking himself, "What is it about my personality and style of interacting that leads someone to those conclusions?"

At any rate, I hope he attributed the quotation. No such thing as bad publicity.

Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Chris, you really need to push Will into a corner and get him to buck up and explain why the EAG used for Abr 1:1-3 was "impossible." He always does this crap. He just declares something a a fact and never even explains why he thinks it is so.

Tempted though I am to press the issue, I honestly don't have time. I'm trying to revise the translation timeline paper, put the finishing touches on my Sunstone and CFH papers, and read about 15,000 pages to study for comprehensive exams in the fall!

[_dartagnan]

Tempted though I am to press the issue, I honestly don't have time. I'm trying to revise the translation timeline paper, put the finishing touches on my Sunstone and CFH papers, and read about 15,000 pages to study for comprehensive exams in the fall!

So what's the problem?

;)

[_dartagnan]

That's unfortunate, as it almost surely means he takes it in a "haha-look-what-some-critic-said-about-me" way, rather than asking himself, "What is it about my personality and style of interacting that leads someone to those conclusions?"

Yea, he is just mimicking Dan Peterson. It makes him feel like part of the group over there.

[_Runtu]

That's unfortunate, as it almost surely means he takes it in a "haha-look-what-some-critic-said-about-me" way, rather than asking himself, "What is it about my personality and style of interacting that leads someone to those conclusions?"

At any rate, I hope he attributed the quotation. No such thing as bad publicity.

Chris

Yep, Will doesn't strike me as particularly introspective. It was my interaction with him, partly, that led me to abandon this board and MAD for a time.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Tempted though I am to press the issue, I honestly don't have time. I'm trying to revise the translation timeline paper, put the finishing touches on my Sunstone and CFH papers, and read about 15,000 pages to study for comprehensive exams in the fall!

So what's the problem?

;)

I'm only human? :-P