1. It gives his shoddy work an air of legitimacy, and that is all he is interested in.
2. Now that he has an air of legitimacy he can attack everyone he has a vendetta against and still try to pass off his nonsense as scholarship.
3. He can now leave a 5 star review on his own work and have his friends mass report any negative review so it gets removed.
Your first point seems rather accurate. I’m continuing to read further and what I’m encountering seems like throwing spaghetti at the wall in terms of source use.
As an example of Robert's penchant for personal vendettas, he just posted a "review" of your review in the Facebook group called "Just say you don't understand Ladder Day Saint beliefs and move along" using his "Devin Henderson" sock account. In his cathartic hypocritical screed pretending to be a review he calls you a "midwit" and anyone who disagrees with him an "a$$hole." Boylan is a LOLcow. If you disagree with him you will be called silly names by a silly man. I quoted the text of his review below.
I discovered on DiscussMormonism that someone is reviewing Not By Scripture Alone by Robert Boylan and this is his review of the first chapter. I went through the review and it is pathetic.
OP right out of the gate seems to take issue with Robert's use of "pop level apologetic authors" instead of "academic" authors as if modern academia is the ultimate arbiter of truth and that these "pop level apologetic authors" are inherently untrustworthy. That is a lame appeal to authority that is very common with midwits which this person is 100% an example of.
OP also tries to allege that Mormons only cite scholars when it suits them however I find that laughable because OP's definition of scholar based on their language and blind appeal to academia is all based on wether they agree with them so OP is literally doing the exact same thing but masking it with a bunch of word salad to make Robert look like the bad guy. OP then claims Robert "rips off" Robert Bellarmine's arguments against Sola Scriptura without actually critiquing anything about the arguments themselves aside from just listing off random people who've allegedly addressed them. OP's counter is literally nothing more than him going "I'm too lazy to think of a coherent counter argument so go read these other a$$holes
instead."
OP lastly claims that Robert argues for an infinite canon of scripture and thus must accept or reject all writings like the Gospel Of Thomas all based on whether the Q15 have specifically said if they're canon or not. That is such a laughably cartoonish depiction of our canon of scripture that it steps into the realm of parody.
If strawmen, baseless appeals to authority, pathetic gotchas and cartoonish misrepresentations are all that will come out of this "review" then DiscussMormonism is truly rotten.
Mag’ladroth mentioned that Boylan just reused Bellarmine's arguments and Boylan was more than happy to prove Mag’ladroth correct. Watch out for a pathetic screed on the ScripturalMormonism blog followed by Boylan praising that blog post using his puppet accounts followed by another GoFundMe.
