Quick history lesson:
November 2007,
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3836&st=0&sk=t&sd=aWilliam:
I’ve started this thread for the express purpose of inviting people like Kevin Graham, Chris Smith, Brackite – and anyone else who is so inclined – to delineate to the best of their ability the arguments that they believe support the premise that the KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a/1b) are the simultaneously-produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictation of the first chapter and a half of the Book of Abraham.
Now I assumed Will was sincere in his request, and I thought it was the opportune moment to present him with 7 arguments Brian Hauglid refused to respond to before and after his FAIR presentation. I mean if Will is sincere, then he'd really want to know what the best arguments were for a dictated scenario, right? So I responded:
Kevin:
Will here is something I posted on the Book of Abraham forum, last year in October: (arguments 1-7)
Will responded:
Thanks for your efforts to compile these arguments together in one place...I appreciate what you have done so far. I look forward to your future posts.
Now instead of responding to these arguments, Will and Brian's modus operandi has been to figure out ways to dismiss them by focusing on newer proposals that are more apologetically promising. Once they manage to stretch the bounds of reason and conclude one is "plausible," they forward it as "cutting edge." Well, this is only "new" and "on the edge" in apologetic circles, because that is why they are designed in the first place. Will is still trying to explain how it is "plausible" people live on the moon, but the rest of us are content with the obviouss, most probable explanations that don't require the mental gymnastics of flubber.
In any event, Will continued to respond by trying to steer the discussion onto his assertions about Abr 1:12. He wanted us to "explain" numerous things for his benefit - apparently he wanted to use us to knock off the shaarp edges before he presents his smooth, shiny new present to Haugee.
Will:
how do you explain the strange discrepancy between the two manuscripts at Abraham 1:12 within the context of a dictation session? You talked about it briefly above. I understand your simple answer is that Parrish was writing faster than Williams. But how does that answer address the fact that the Williams document apparently shows an interlinear insertion of the words "I will refer you to the representation that is at the (commencement of this record." I have argued that this insertion was made after the subsequent paragraph had been written; that the parenthesis preceding "commencement" overlays the word "the" in the first sentence of the following paragraph: "It was made after the form ..."
Suffice it to say, Will didn't touch the seven counterarguments with a ten foot pole. It was almost as if he never even acknolwedged their existence. So the thread continued along the lines Will had planned. He came to the forum claiming he wanted us to present our best arguments for X, but he never intended to address them.
So shooting forward to the present, Will now asserts with emphasis, "Graham NEVER produces a single counter-argument." This, in stark contrast to Will of 2007 who thanked me for providing them.