In the final analysis, and after suffering through so many threads like this I can no longer even come close to keeping count, we are compelled to remind ourselves that this handful of arrogantly self-assured exmormons plying their unique trade on the mormondiscussions.com message board constitutes an almost indiscernible blip on the scope of critical significance. My numerous discussions with beastlie, for example, have done nothing more than to confirm the fact that exmormon “intellectuals” render the term “rigorous analysis” nothing but an endeavor in academic comedy. Mark Wright’s assessment of her has been the most accurate to date: she is an academic poseur whose entire credibility derives from the uninformed applause certain to be found in this small circle of her “peers."
As for myself, it is late where I am, and I have exhausted my capacity for dealing with the perpetual demonstrations of illogic and incognizant ignorance emanating from these people.
I must therefore leave them to you alone for the time being ...
But of course! The problem here is that the exmormons are illogical and ignorant.
Let’s review some of Will’s participation on this thread, shall we?
1. Will appears to remind us that Dr. Hansen is a respected Mesoamericanist who was consulted for the Gibson’s film. Dr. Hansen believes in the Book of Mormon.
2. Since the topic was whether Dr. Clark had convinced any of his colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document, I asked Will if he had evidence that Dr. Hansen had so convinced his colleagues – since, you know, that would actually directly address the issue being discussed. Will brought up Hansen and Clark in a clear appeal to authority.
3. Will responded that:
Your "point" is irrelevant, of course. Why should Clark or Hansen even attempt to persuade "their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?" And how do you know, at all, whether or not they have been able to do just that? Obviously, you don't. You simply assume, as per usual.
4. I responded by repeating the portion of Dr. Clark’s comments wherein he directly stated that he had attempted to so persuade his colleagues, to no avail. Will ignored this.
5. In response to Will’s appeal to authority, I referred to Coe and Demarest’s statements that contradict the idea of the Book of Mormon being an ancient Mesoamerican document. I also share when it’s appropriate to analyze an appeal to authority. One specific instance in which an appeal to authority is logically unfounded is when the authority’s opinion contradicts the opinion of the majority of scholars in the field.
6. Will replied that:
Your analogy breaks down if you cannot demonstrate, to any appreciable degree, that (placing the question explicitly within the context of the present discussion) John Clark and/or Richard Hansen have ever done precisely what you suggest: disregard experiments that contradict his belief.
7. I provided direct evidence of Dr. Clark disregarding data that contradicted his belief, as well as an additional example of Dr. Miller.
8. When asked why he ignored the evidence, he responded that
beastlie dear, isn't it quite apparent that I categorically disagree with your conclusions concerning his "ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia"?
9. I invited Will to provide evidence that Mesoamerican scholars really do accept the existence of the bow and arrow during the Book of Mormon time frame, since that’s the only way he could prove Dr. Clark was not ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia.
10. Will’s response was that the bow and arrow was not a crucial issue. Whether or not it’s a crucial issue, it clearly is an example of Dr. Clark ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia.
11. Will bows out.
These conversations always end up taking on a strange Mad-Hatterite aspect, as Will bows out while loudly proclaiming that exmormons are illogical and ignorant.

