DiscussMormonism.com

Robert Boylan continues his rampage of calling random people cowards because they won't engage with his desperate attempts to debate.

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com ... h.html?m=1

In this rather hilarious interaction Boylan calls himself a "professional historian" and claims that he will be "more than professional and cordial" during the debate. He also claims he has studied protestantism since 2006. To prove this he rattles of the names of a few Reformed theologians who's work he claims to have read.

First, I didn't know that people without doctorates, who've never published anything peer-reviewed, who work for cult apologetic organizations, and leave 5 star reviews on their own self-published books could be considered "professional historians." Boylan is once again suffering from delusions of granduer. He seems willing to claim the title but not willing to do the work to make the title legitimate.

Second, he claims he will be "cordial and professional" during the debate. This is laughable since the videos of him finally getting people to talk to him on a zoom call have come out. During that discussion/debate Boylan repeatedly complained that others weren't following the debate format while he blatantly violated it himself. At least once he declared himself the winner at the end of an exchange in which he became frustrated. His overall tone was combative and condescending. It seems as though Boylan is incapable of being "professional and cordial."

Finally, Boylan's study of "protestantism" is clearly a study limited to Calvinistic theologians. These theologians are where he gets all of his definitions of protestant doctrines and the Clavinistic theological positions are the ones he exclusively critiques. Boylan seems unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that the umbrella of "protestantism" is wider than Calvinism. Once again, his claims of expertise are dubious.

A "professional historian" would never publicly use the words "Satanic theology like Protestantism"---even if that person vehemently disliked Protestantism on a personal level. Historians need to be able to assess their subjects with some level of objectivity. To call one religion or another "Satanic" is to loudly announce your own inability to objectively evaluate that religious tradition.

But a "professional historian" is also someone who produces in a professional capacity: presentations at conferences, peer-reviewed articles, chapters in books, books with academic presses, etc. It's fine for a professional historian to self-publish here or there, but if all you do is self-publish, you are not "professional," you are a hobbyist.

I understand he also works for the B. H. Roberts Foundation, but that makes him a "professional" apologist, not historian. "Professional" is in scare quotes because he is clearly very unprofessional, regardless of who pays him.

(DISCLAIMER: I consider myself more of a professional historian in-training; my Academia page has what I have published so far.)

MsJack wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:53 pm

A "professional historian" would never publicly use the words "Satanic theology like Protestantism"---even if that person vehemently disliked Protestantism on a personal level. Historians need to be able to assess their subjects with some level of objectivity. To call one religion or another "Satanic" is to loudly announce your own inability to objectively evaluate that religious tradition.

But a "professional historian" is also someone who produces in a professional capacity: presentations at conferences, peer-reviewed articles, chapters in books, books with academic presses, etc. It's fine for a professional historian to self-publish here or there, but if all you do is self-publish, you are not "professional," you are a hobbyist.

I understand he also works for the B. H. Roberts Foundation, but that makes him a "professional" apologist, not historian. "Professional" is in scare quotes because he is clearly very unprofessional, regardless of who pays him.

(DISCLAIMER: I consider myself more of a professional historian in-training; my Academia page has what I have published so far.)

I am excited to follow your progress, Jack! I agree with you about the etiquette of those aspiring to be taken seriously. Condemning a major branch of Christianity as “Satanic” is not or should not be regarded as serious.

MsJack wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:53 pm

A "professional historian" would never publicly use the words "Satanic theology like Protestantism"---even if that person vehemently disliked Protestantism on a personal level. Historians need to be able to assess their subjects with some level of objectivity. To call one religion or another "Satanic" is to loudly announce your own inability to objectively evaluate that religious tradition.

But a "professional historian" is also someone who produces in a professional capacity: presentations at conferences, peer-reviewed articles, chapters in books, books with academic presses, etc. It's fine for a professional historian to self-publish here or there, but if all you do is self-publish, you are not "professional," you are a hobbyist.

I understand he also works for the B. H. Roberts Foundation, but that makes him a "professional" apologist, not historian. "Professional" is in scare quotes because he is clearly very unprofessional, regardless of who pays him.

(DISCLAIMER: I consider myself more of a professional historian in-training; my Academia page has what I have published so far.)

Great observations concerning Boylan's lack of credibility and professionalism. The more I think about what he does and what you have said, the more I think that even if he did have the credentials, he certainly couldn't be called professional based on his behavior. The fact that he doesn't have the credentials, his behavior is abhorrent, AND he still calls himself a professional historian and scholar tells me he is all about the form and not about the substance. I think he has a "big" fish in a small pond kind of mindset. I'm sure he also has DCP and the other mopologists cheerleading for him and inflating his ego.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:01 am

I am excited to follow your progress, Jack! I agree with you about the etiquette of those aspiring to be taken seriously. Condemning a major branch of Christianity as “Satanic” is not or should not be regarded as serious.

Thanks Kish!

Completely unrelated to the thread, but wanna hear something cool?

http://www.thetwocities.com/biblical-st ... w-podcast/

Listen at the 25-minute mark.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:01 am

MsJack wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:53 pm

A "professional historian" would never publicly use the words "Satanic theology like Protestantism"---even if that person vehemently disliked Protestantism on a personal level. Historians need to be able to assess their subjects with some level of objectivity. To call one religion or another "Satanic" is to loudly announce your own inability to objectively evaluate that religious tradition.

But a "professional historian" is also someone who produces in a professional capacity: presentations at conferences, peer-reviewed articles, chapters in books, books with academic presses, etc. It's fine for a professional historian to self-publish here or there, but if all you do is self-publish, you are not "professional," you are a hobbyist.

I understand he also works for the B. H. Roberts Foundation, but that makes him a "professional" apologist, not historian. "Professional" is in scare quotes because he is clearly very unprofessional, regardless of who pays him.

(DISCLAIMER: I consider myself more of a professional historian in-training; my Academia page has what I have published so far.)

I am excited to follow your progress, Jack! I agree with you about the etiquette of those aspiring to be taken seriously. Condemning a major branch of Christianity as “Satanic” is not or should not be regarded as serious.

It's especially odd when he calls protestantism "Satanic" but he doesn't appear to have interacted with any protestants besides the Reformed (mostly Baptists). Of course, Joseph Smith especially hated Calvinism so Boylan is at least consistent with Smith on that topic. But he outs himself as little more than a silly troll when he says that kind of stuff.

I’m a professional chef. I’ve been cooking since 2006 and read a lot of Alton Brown.

Debate me on salt versus pepper!!

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:19 am

I’m a professional chef. I’ve been cooking since 2006 and read a lot of Alton Brown.

Debate me on salt versus pepper!!

I've watched a number of episodes of Tasting History with Max Miller and I make corned beef and cabbage every St. Patrick's Day. From my Viking side, I have had gravlax on toast. Let's see you top that, Boylan.

Riverdance!!!

For added context, the guy Boylan is targeting claims he suffered a lot of pain as a result of his time in the LDS church. Now he wants to help other people leave. He used to be extremely combative and rude but I have seen him make honest attempts to move past that. The screenshots of him sending mopologist Travis Anderson profane messages are obviously in response to Anderson calling him "retarded." That's a common mopologist insult and Anderson uses it liberally. Along with profanity and making obscene memes using pictures he takes from people's Facebook pages. Boylan forgot to mention those important details.

Bill_Billiams wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:38 pm

For added context, the guy Boylan is targeting claims he suffered a lot of pain as a result of his time in the LDS church. Now he wants to help other people leave. He used to be extremely combative and rude but I have seen him make honest attempts to move past that. The screenshots of him sending mopologist Travis Anderson profane messages are obviously in response to Anderson calling him "retarded." That's a common mopologist insult and Anderson uses it liberally. Along with profanity and making obscene memes using pictures he takes from people's Facebook pages. Boylan forgot to mention those important details.

That's very sad. I also once had a well-known apologist push my buttons in private and then post our correspondence without my permission when I lashed out. They love that. You have to stay perfectly polite and neutral with them no matter how much they escalate or they will use it against you. And private correspondence with a Mopologist is never actually private.

I hope the young man looks to his mental health and learns how to (not) engage with apologists.