Amateur Hour: Robert Boylan gets a “debate”

[drumdude]

Good lord what a mess.

https://youtu.be/OMktYS8N4lk

For comparison, Boyland makes Kwaku look like a consummate professional:

https://www.youtube.com/live/1XbJ3954HW8?feature=share

[Gadianton]

I watched about 2 minutes. What a jerk. So he suckered a bunch of lay ministers into a debate that turned into a discussion of his narrow professional specialty, nobody could answer him, and so he declares victory. You have to give DCP some credit here, he's never suckered a group of people into a debate on Arabic grammar, something he's guaranteed to win on, and then post the video of him showing he knows more about his major than everyone else as proof of victory, but make sure comments are turned off so he has the last word just in case.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

That was awful to watch. It's painfully obvious that Boylan does not have the skills necessary to be a podcaster.

The only winner of that "debate" was the Voyager spacecraft that is flying away from Earth (and Boylan) at an estimated 50,000 miles per hour.

[Moksha]

Did Boylan find some unaware discussion group and began asking his inane questions?

Why not engage with Shulem on the topic of the Book of Abraham? What kind of a coward must Boylan be to squabble with some group who had no idea what he was going on about, but refuse to defend a book dictated by Joseph Smith?!!!

Will Boylan let the Book of Abraham rot on the vine or will he ride forth and engage his wits against Shulem?

[runtu]

This just reinforces my general belief that apologetics is about ego and demonstrating that you’re smart enough to rationalize what is essentially irrational.

[Kishkumen]

I watched about 2 minutes. What a jerk. So he suckered a bunch of lay ministers into a debate that turned into a discussion of his narrow professional specialty, nobody could answer him, and so he declares victory. You have to give DCP some credit here, he's never suckered a group of people into a debate on Arabic grammar, something he's guaranteed to win on, and then post the video of him showing he knows more about his major than everyone else as proof of victory, but make sure comments are turned off so he has the last word just in case.

Yeah, he behaves like a real a-hole in the debate. Absolute amateur hour.

[Kishkumen]

This just reinforces my general belief that apologetics is about ego and demonstrating that you’re smart enough to rationalize what is essentially irrational.

Indeed. The entire discussion is vacuous, to borrow one of Boylie’s insults. The whole idea of having something like a Bible was shaped by the Classical literary tradition. There were certain authors and texts that had an authoritative status, and there were the rest. Homer came very close to having the kind of oracular status the Bible would come to have. Of course people would come along and riff on Homeric style and content, but Homer was Homer, and the learned knew the difference. So, yeah, the Classically trained scholars of Christian antiquity decided to put together their set of authoritative texts, and that set the gold standard for the oracular text. There was no idea that no one else could receive revelation or be guided by the Spirit. But once you received the oracular text and the canon was there, the question of why more should be added to it is as much practical as anything. The Church was guided by the same authority and text as it had been from the second century CE (although the canon itself was not formalized until later), so what need was there for more? Plenty of Christian literature was produced, and the literate, learned, and wealthy read it. It didn’t have to be in the Bible to be read.

It is only really when the authority or sufficiency of the Church is challenged that people breaking with it need a new standard.

So, on a historical basis, so much of what he is asking is dumb. The assumption that LDS people always run with, as Boylan does here, is that God must do what he did in the past today. But, of course, that has really never been the case, and demonstrably so. Sure, you can call something a Restoration of the past. You can even rewrite the scriptures to make it look like Adam was a good Christian. But that doesn’t make it necessarily so. Just because there was an era of writing scripture, does not mean that every inspired text must join the canon. Hey, guess what? Animal sacrifice came to an end in most of Judaism and Christianity. Oliver Cowdery discussed how it would come back, but is hasn’t.

Of course, most of these debates proceed from the assumption that Mormonism is somehow transgressing correct Christianity. Discussion on this basis is already dumb, so I guess everyone gets what they deserve. Mormons can claim that they have restored some poorly attested Christian Church that Jesus set up and then claim that it went downhill from there, creating the majority of Christianity with false doctrines and suppressed truths. And yet, much of what Mormons believe is contingent upon much later teachings and practices. And we are talking about really basic stuff here. So, again, Boylan is in trouble. Sure, he can smirk about Jesus not teaching sola scriptura, as though that made a lick of sense, but then he has to explain why Mormonism looks like a mashup of Protestantism, Catholicism, and a bunch of off-the-cuff speculations. How is that any closer to Primitive Christianity?

It’s not. Boylan: 0.

[msnobody]

Good lord what a mess.

https://youtu.be/OMktYS8N4lk

For comparison, Boyland makes Kwaku look like a consummate professional:

https://www.youtube.com/live/1XbJ3954HW8?feature=share

I know this thread is about Boyland, but kudos to Kwuaku for hanging in there for 2.5 hours. Perhaps the result of this interaction will eventually serve as a mile marker in his life.

[MsJack]

Sure, he can smirk about Jesus not teaching sola scriptura, as though that made a lick of sense

Lol why would anyone think this is a good point against Protestantism? We're not Mormons. We don't go around pretending all of our beliefs and practices were present in the early church. We understand that some of them developed gradually.

(I haven't listened to the debate, I'll try to make time for it.)

[Kishkumen]

Lol why would anyone think this is a good point against Protestantism? We're not Mormons. We don't go around pretending all of our beliefs and practices were present in the early church. We understand that some of them developed gradually.

(I haven't listened to the debate, I'll try to make time for it.)

Indeed! Thanks, MsJack. It would be interesting to see you debate Boylan, since you know quite well what all of this is about from your advanced study.