Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_Droopy]

Skousen is not an authority on anything related to the Book of Abraham. Not even close. He is considered an authority on the Book of Mormon manuscripts because the Church only allows people with a certain kind of bullet proof testimony to examine and analyze them. But it has nothing to do with his superior training in text criticism. He is a linguist.

And you're an English teacher in Brazil, and Brent Metcalf is a software engineer. Chris Smith?

It seems that the more people like you with no credentials whatsoever in the relevant or even closely related fields crow and bleat about the credentials of others, in an attempt to poison whatever wells you can, the more it appears that, in the world of exmo and Neo-Orthodox crticism of the Book of Abraham, credentials are the theoretical coin of the realm, but hard to come by with the very people doing the bleating.

Credentialism is an intellectual coward's exercise in any case. The quality of anyone's arguments lies within those arguments themselves and the personal study and research put into them, not in a formal degree hanging on a wall.

[_EAllusion]

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

By watching him lie countless times, even about easily disproven things of no consequence. Heck, the conversation going on right now is about a really brazen lie, isn't it?

[_EAllusion]

Credentialism is an intellectual coward's exercise in any case. The quality of anyone's arguments lies within those arguments themselves and the personal study and research put into them, not in a formal degree hanging on a wall.

Kevin is responding to the credentialism of certain apologists. You appear to have missed the context. Happily, this means we can put this quote in a bottle and use it as a reply to the people Kevin is attempting to reply to. You fired your gun at the wrong side, Droopy.

[_Kishkumen]

This thread is priceless. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... sentation/

Schryver is so jealous of Don Bradley he can't stand it. He hates his guts. Bradley's nice as pie to Schryver. Talks to him like the kid that just got cut from the team. Good luck, buddy, keep working, you'll make it next time.

Well, Don Bradley does have some shady friends.

[_Blixa]

This thread is priceless. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/581 ... sentation/

Schryver is so jealous of Don Bradley he can't stand it. He hates his guts. Bradley's nice as pie to Schryver. Talks to him like the kid that just got cut from the team. Good luck, buddy, keep working, you'll make it next time.

Well, Don Bradley does have some shady friends.

*snort*

[_Chap]

...

Credentialism is an intellectual coward's exercise in any case. The quality of anyone's arguments lies within those arguments themselves and the personal study and research put into them, not in a formal degree hanging on a wall.

Isn't Droopy putting himself through college anymore? I rather admired him for that when I heard about it.

[_thews]

It seems that the more people like you with no credentials whatsoever in the relevant or even closely related fields crow and bleat about the credentials of others, in an attempt to poison whatever wells you can, the more it appears that, in the world of exmo and Neo-Orthodox crticism of the Book of Abraham, credentials are the theoretical coin of the realm, but hard to come by with the very people doing the bleating.

Criticism of the Book of Abraham can be based on fact and not credentials. Since you give Joseph Smith an out for statinging "race" multiple times without actually meaning race, you're nothing more than an intellectually dishonest snake oil salesman. There is no question that "Dark and loathsome" skin is inferior to "White and delightsom" skin in Joseph Smith's doctrine, but to claim that pointing out this simple fact is "poison" is yet another card holding up your testimony that Joseph Smith was telling the truth as you play the pathetic victim card. Where is the line in your hysteresis that keeps you from accepting Joseph Smith's doctrine from being what it actually is, rather than what you need it to be? Regarding Will's concocted three-card Monte game of cracking the secret code in the EAG, in the end it has to make sense to someone other than himself.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin is responding to the credentialism of certain apologists. You appear to have missed the context. Happily, this means we can put this quote in a bottle and use it as a reply to the people Kevin is attempting to reply to. You fired your gun at the wrong side, Droopy.

Well, this point should have been obvious, but Droopy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

The point is Schryver has been actively seeking support for his theories from folks working at BYU. For years the folks at FAIR have been beating us over the heads with credentialism, but the fact is none of their "experts" have expertise in the relevant areas of study either. Gee's Egyptology means nothing in light of the current state of things.

The primary apologetic mission is first and foremost, to distance Joseph Smith from the papyri and the KEP as much as possible. Hence, the KEP had to have been the work of Phelps, not Smith. The papyri used by Smith must be missing because the extant materials would prove him to have been a fraud, etc. This requires a well orchestrated campaign of deception and subterfuge dressed up as "scholarship."

That's why Schryver is desperately trying to recruit support from anyone with letters after their name. He tried to get Hauglid to accept his nonsense but Hauglid didn't buy into it. The result? Schryver disowned him as a friend and then accused him of working for the enemy. Because to disagree with his pet theories, or the overall FARMS worldview, is to disagree with Jesus Christ himself.

[_Kishkumen]

Because to disagree with his pet theories, or the overall FARMS worldview, is to disagree with Jesus Christ himself.

Wait... you're not saying that....

Dear me!

[_RayAgostini]

Rollo Tomasi:

Sorry I'm so late to this conversation. I just logged in and noted several PM's asking me to comment on the charge of Will calling harmony the "c" word. It's been over 6 months since the thread in question occurred, so my memory is pretty hazy. But I can honestly say that I do not recall ever seeing Will use the "c" word, in that thread or in any other. And given how repulsed I am by that word, I'm pretty sure I would remember if he had. Of course, Will could have used such a word and it was edited out before I saw it, but I have NO evidence at all of this. If memory serves, my statement then to Will about his poor treatment of harmony had more to do with his tone than any profanity, but it certainly wasn't about him using the "c" word (or my response would have been much worse).

Rollo Tomasi:

I'm not saying he never used the "c" word; I'm simply saying that I never saw it used in that thread (and I'm quite certain about this, because I would remember if he had used that vile word).

Eric:

I consider Stak and Spurven friends, at least on the Internet, so it's hard for me to dismiss their testimony about how the C-word incident went down, but this part of the story just doesn't make any sense to me. I have absolutely no confidence in harmony's recollection of the events, for reasons I started to explain here. I believe she was offended by something Will wrote. Based on her reaction, I think it really struck a nerve. I also read that thread as it was happening, and I don't remember seeing the C-word at all. I could have missed it, of course, since harmony deleted the whole post, but I definitely would have noticed and said something had I seen it.