KEP Debate in Pundits

[_CaliforniaKid]

Over at MADB Will declares again with more bombastic certitude that chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham was produced before 1842. He says there is little or no evidence for the critics to "assert" otherwise.

Really now?

Indeed. I don't mind Will deploying old arguments that the critics have disputed. But when said arguments have been all but demolished, it's a little tiresome to see them cropping up again and again, especially accompanied by statements about how stupid the critics are for not seeing what is supposedly so glaringly obvious.

-Chris

[_Trevor]

I can only say it seems strange that such sensible advice was ignored. Of course it may be that it only seems sensible to me because, unlike John Gee and his colleagues, I do not have a spiritual testimony of the truth of the Book of Abraham to help me over the obstacles posed by the secular evidence against its historicity.

Neusner was right on target there, and how I wish that LDS folk would even allow open room for such a perspective in the Church. One need not lack a testimony in order to take the view that the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc., are 19th century documents. They are still legitimate expressions of Christian faith and inspiration, regardless of their dates. It is the sad insistence on their actual antiquity that reveals a real lack of faith. Too bad that many crave bad scholarship as a prop for weak faith.

[_cksalmon]

KEP.

Goodness.

Will, in his characteristic smarmy manner and in response to me, referenced his sig line (a quotation by me that referenced his vulgarity) in a recent post there. I responded by quoting verbatim Will's vulgar post from this board that equated critics with homosexuals who routinely gathered en masse to masturbate with each other.

Now, I just quoted Will, mind you.

Result. I was busted from exalted Pundit to mere Member and told that I should have known better.

Meh.

It was fully expected, and, yes, I did know better.

I just couldn't help myself.

Will's taken KG's abdicated place as Hauglid's front-man fool for Book of Abraham apologia.

Chris

[_dartagnan]

Indeed. I don't mind Will deploying old arguments that the critics have disputed. But when said arguments have been all but demolished, it's a little tiresome to see them cropping up again and again, especially accompanied by statements about how stupid the critics are for not seeing what is supposedly so glaringly obvious.

Well, this is all Hauglid's presentation amounted to. He kept talking about the critical assumptions as if they were entirely unfounded. He would constantly mock and ridicule to a receptive audience by saying something like, "Keep in mind that this is how it is because these are 'dictations transcripts,' you can't let that premise escape you OK?" As if we were the ones letting an unsupported premise cloud our analysis.

He even had the audacity to pretend that he had never heard of any evidences for dictation. As if we critics were just blowing out anti-Mormon assertions simply because we can. He is a fraud who is afraid of debating. He is trying to shelter more people from the elephant in the room, which is proved by the fact that he and Will refuse to let anyone see the manuscript "evidence" from his presentation. He was scared to death to let anyone in his audience become familiar with the argument we present; so much so that he had to pretend he didn't even know what our argument amounted to. Amazing. Utterly, amazing.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Didn't want this to fall off the first page without Will Schryver having an opportunity to see it, and, if he sees fit, add his thoughts!

(While I'm a huge fan of the vile, obscene Will, I very much enjoy the BoA-defending Will, too!)

:-D

[_William Schryver]

Didn't want this to fall off the first page without Will Schryver having an opportunity to see it, and, if he sees fit, add his thoughts!

(While I'm a huge fan of the vile, obscene Will, I very much enjoy the BoA-defending Will, too!)

:-D

I'm flattered.

I must assume that you are among the apparently hundreds of people who have followed the thread on the MAD board to which this one makes reference. I noticed today that it is well on its way to 12,000 views! My defense of the Book of Abraham occurs there. I have little interest in exchanging pleasantries with the uninformed sciolists who wax grandiloquent here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™, but whose knowledge of the current status of the research and familiarity with the material in question is so deficient and out-of-date as to make any conversation with them an exercise in futility.

I am quite content to permit the wanton self-congratulation that masquerades as knowledgeable scholarship here continue unimpeded by my indictments of it.

(I should make it clear that I do not include Chris Smith among those I characterize as "uninformed sciolists." I will at least grant Chris the acknowledgment that he is making a good-faith effort to learn the material. And while I do not often agree with his interpretations of the data, I respect his efforts and opinions.)

[_Tarski]

I have little interest in exchanging pleasantries with the uninformed sciolists who wax grandiloquent here in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park™, but whose knowledge of the current status of the research and familiarity with the material in question is so deficient and out-of-date as to make any conversation with them an exercise in futility.

Does anyone else see the unreflective irony of this? The above sentence should be read with a faux-Cambridge accent with emphasis on the words "sciolist" and "grandiloquent" What could be better sciolism or prententious grandiloquence?
One should then immediate read his "circle jerk" post to get psychological whiplash.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I must assume that you are among the apparently hundreds of people who have followed the thread on the MAD board to which this one makes reference. I noticed today that it is well on its way to 12,000 views!

12,000 views? Why, that's paltry compared to my long-dead Licked Cupcake post on this board, which had 17,229 views.

(I'm just working to better your inferiority complex.)

KA

[_dartagnan]

Will, while you are here pretending to be an expert, why don't you explain why you feel it is necessary to lie?

(zoooom.... you can actually hear him running away)

[Guest]

12,000 views? Why, that's paltry compared to my long-dead Licked Cupcake post on this board, which had 17,229 views.

What Will probably doesn't realize is that most of those are probably generated by a critical audience who are just waiting to see Hauglid make an ass of himself again. But as expected, he keeps leaving the dicsussion with the usual indignance.

But the main reason this "discussion" has so many "views" is because it is on the front page of the forum. It is always at the top to catch everyone's attention. In the LDS discussion forum, interesting eventually threads get pushed down to the bottom or even onto another page, whereas in Pundits, there is usually only one discussion at a time and that is how it is for months. So if you click in Pundits, that's the latest discussion for people to read. If you're on the home page, the same discussion is advertised as the latest. So if would be difficult to imagine anyone, especially newcomers, not "clicking" on it.

But we can now see why Will likes to preach so much on that forum. He thinks he has a huge audience following him. LOL!

Too bad he can't hear them laughing.

I know this is true because most people over at MADB aren't even slightly interested in the KEP. All the related threads outside the Pundits area usually die within a day or two. It is just too much for them to swallow.