Currently at MADB - Will loses his mojo

[_Paul Osborne]

I predict that within my lifetime, the LDS church will have released any notion that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are factual or historical.

In another twenty years or so, the young apologists will be wondering how anyone ever thought the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were actually true stories, and there will be those who vehemently assert they never were taught as such.

Just wait!

~td~

I have to disagree with you. It just won't happen. But if it does, I'll be the first to pitch my scriptures in the trash, chase down a bottle of Jack Daniels, and crank up Led Zeppelin until the walls come down.

Paul O

[_Runtu]

Will's latest post to David:

I must say that I perceive a considerable tension at work in your expressed beliefs. I also perceive what appears to be a trend in terms of which forces are prevailing in this contest of cognition. Whether or not this convoluted cognitive dissonance is yet productive of nightmares I am in no position to say, but I predict that it will be—and sooner rather than later.

It seems Will believes that David has finally succumbed to the "forces of evil". What was I previously saying about David Wright?

Yeah, that post really got to me with its mixture of pity and disdain. I guess that's what happens when you are open and honest about your beliefs and don't happen to toe the party line.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Yeah, that post really got to me with its mixture of pity and disdain. I guess that's what happens when you are open and honest about your beliefs and don't happen to toe the party line.

David took it quite personally, and really let Will have it. Glad I'm not the only one who occasionally pops a cork over Will's antics. It's sort of validating, actually.

[_Dwight Frye]

David... really let Will have it.

Boy, did he! For those of you who can't (or won't) venture into the MADhouse, David's reply to Will:

Will,

I'm through with your nonsense.

I must note that I have detected some indications of an altered posture when describing ideas with which you disagree

No, I’m afraid your assessment is entirely incorrect. Passion for what I know to be right has always marked my character.

On the ideas of Michael Rhodes vis-à-vis the origins of the Book of Abraham: ”… sheer nonsense …”

You’ve taken my quote out of context and have misrepresented what I said. I never described Michael Rhodes’ views regarding the Book of Abraham’s origins as “sheer nonsense.”

We weren’t even discussing Rhodes’ take regarding its "origin," Will.

Instead, we were considering Rhodes’ argument that Moses not only wrote the book of Genesis, but that the creation account in Abraham may have influenced Genesis 1-2.

Alas, I can no longer help the fact that I am a trained biblical scholar, and I can assure you that there is not a single individual in my field who would accept Rhodes’ position concerning Mosaic authorship for the two separate creation accounts in Genesis, let alone the non-contestable fact that the academic skills of source criticism would lead to the conclusion that Abraham 4 and 5 derive from Genesis rather than the other way around.

I’m afraid that proper academic training would lead anyone to the conclusion that Rhode’s views regarding Mosaic authorship for Genesis 1-2, and the Book of Abraham’s alleged a priori connection with Genesis amount to “sheer nonsense.”

And like every other biblical scholar on the face of the planet, I will passionately state that Rhodes’ comments on these two issues could not be more wrong.

Your brand of Mormonism, Will, may abandon all confidence in the connection between academic knowledge and the Gospel, but if that is the case, what on earth are you doing participating in apologetics, which is nothing more than an attempt to defend the faith via rational, scientific observations?!!

I expect you, like everyone else, to follow board rules and not misrepresent my statements. Moreover, if you are allowed to offer a detailed psycho-analysis concerning my personal beliefs and/or testimony that includes not only your interpretation of what I do or do not belief, but also predictions that the combination of my knowledge and testimony will lead to "nightmares," I am no longer interested in participating in this board.

No one should not be allowed to violate board rules, which clearly prohibit both quoting a poster out of context and turning the thread into a personalized and mocking assessment of one's testimony. You have done both.

In addition, you continually demonstrate both in this thread and in other posts, a self righteous arrogance towards anyone who holds an alternative view regarding the Restoration then the position you accept and I find it extremely offensive, to say the least.

What gives you the right to prophesy that anyone who adheres to a nontraditional model will experience everything from nightmares to leaving the Church!?

Since I associate with a wide variety of LDS graduate students in religious studies, I can assure you, Will, that as uncomfortable as my ideas may be for you, that I am not alone. In fact, I’m on the conservative end.

In this age of information accessibility, you would do well to ask yourself what will happen to Mormonism, let alone LDS apologetics, if your predictions come true and everyone who receives formal academic training in the field of religious scholarship is made to feel that he or she no longer belongs to the LDS community?

This is not the way of Christ.

Wow!

I predict the MADerators will find a reason to close this thread very soon.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Brent rightly highlighted Will's SCMC-ish punt to "silent observers". Will wrote, "there are some, including silent observers, who have discerned a perceptible increase in your degree of dogmatism when advocating your own favored beliefs." Will is always claiming to serve as the spokesperson for a shadowy cadre of upper-tier apologists who seem to keep remarkably up-to-date with the latest posts at MADB. Recently, he told me, "In short, you are fooling no one. You have now developed the reputation among the upper-echelons of LDS apologetics as one who will shake your hand kindly, smile to your face, speak soft words in your presence, and then characterize you as a blathering, bumbling fool when out of your presence." Now, it seems, his apologists-in-waiting are cheering him on in his battle with Bokovoy, as well.

Speaking of David P. Wright, is William trying to hint that David is going to be ostracized by the apologetic community?

[_Kevin Graham]

Expect Will to start pointing aout Bokovoy's typos.

[_Kevin Graham]

David took it quite personally, and really let Will have it. Glad I'm not the only one who occasionally pops a cork over Will's antics. It's sort of validating, actually.

No kidding.

This is like a blast from the past. I don't know if any of you remember my posts roughly a year before I was banned, but I was essentially saying the same things. I was a devout apologist who was sick and tired of crap apologetics. I was trying to get everyone to take the Book of Abraham seriously and stop resorting to Rhodes's and Nibley's failed arguments.

What ensued was the gradual marginalization of Kevin Graham, led by none other than Will Schryver, along with a revolution in Book of Abraham apologetics, led by Brian Hauglid. Hauglid started posting on the forum just a few months before his FAIR presentation on the subject. One could clearly see that he developed his presentation around my concerns, though he never really addressed my arguments head-on.

I eventually got what I wanted, but with a price. I doubt Bokovoy will suffer the same fate. As he said, he can just change his paradigm. I couldn't.

[_Runtu]

Brent rightly highlighted Will's SCMC-ish punt to "silent observers". Will wrote, "there are some, including silent observers, who have discerned a perceptible increase in your degree of dogmatism when advocating your own favored beliefs." Will is always claiming to serve as the spokesperson for a shadowy cadre of upper-tier apologists who seem to keep remarkably up-to-date with the latest posts at MADB. Recently, he told me, "In short, you are fooling no one. You have now developed the reputation among the upper-echelons of LDS apologetics as one who will shake your hand kindly, smile to your face, speak soft words in your presence, and then characterize you as a blathering, bumbling fool when out of your presence." Now, it seems, his apologists-in-waiting are cheering him on in his battle with Bokovoy, as well.

He said that to you? Heh. That's what's so funny about Will's perception of his enemies: it's universally the respectful, the kind, and the knowledgeable whom he finds threatening. Anyone who thinks you're a hypocritical wolf in sheep's clothing is indeed a bumbling fool.

Speaking of David P. Wright, is William trying to hint that David is going to be ostracized by the apologetic community?

He seemed to be suggesting that, like David Wright, David B's unorthodox views are leading him down the path of apostasy and shame. Pathetic.

[_Kevin Graham]

David and Kevin Barney are my favorite apologists, for the reason that they allow the evidence to lead them to their conclusions rather than vice versa.

Uh, I wouldn't go that far. I appreciate both apologists because they are the more reasonable among the lot, and Bokovoy's close relationship with the apostate David Wright has clearly had an appealing effect on his attitude towards critics.

But let's not go crazy here.

Barney's ad hoc J-Red theory is a perfect example of letting a conclusion drive the evidence. At the very least, his conclusion that Joseph Smith must have been a true prophet, made the appeal to J-Red so necessary.

And Bokovoy's affinity for parallelomania, isn't exactly what I would call letting the evidence lead wherever it may. They are still apologists trying to defend an unproved premise. Its just that Bokovoy is willing to change his paradigm to account for the fact that Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian. Will has yet to figure out a way to do that.

Bokovoy once argued:

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

It seems that all Bokovoy is doing with the KEP controversy, is employing his logic above. But he isn't relying strictly on evidence to guide him. It just means he has a bird's-eye view of the current apologetic mess and he wants no part of it. Hauglid and Will are buried in it, missing the forrest for the trees, and have completely wedded themselves to it. It is their baby. They have actually deluded themselves into thinking it holds water.

Bokovoy thinks it is absurd, and for good reason. But is his alternative explanation really evidence-based? I think the apologetic path Bokovoy is taking will lead to further problems that have yet to be discussed.

[_Trevor]

The disagreement continues, and I really enjoyed the end of David's last response, to which I feel a need to add a hearty AMEN!!!

I suggest you [Will] let the others speak for themselves rather than waving them around like a saber in your defense. For suffice it to say, if you are indeed the spokesman for LDS apologetics, I for one call for an impeachment.

I was pretty excited about the Bushman Seminar on defending the faith, and I had hoped that we would see more changes in the overall posture of apologetics. However, Will keeps hinting at supporters who are well placed and disagree with David enough to use Will as a liaison of some kind to warn David that he is apparently treading the path of David Wright. If that is the case, then it would seem that key apologists maintain a fairly hard-line position on what constitutes acceptable belief (as expressed in a public forum) among the membership.

David Bokovoy had the courage and integrity to stick up for David Wright to boot. Kudos to him.