Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

[_beastie]

Hey, Nomad, how do YOU feel about your hero casting doubt on Don's testimony simply due to the fact that Don has reservations about his theory?

And while you're at it, how about finally answering my challenge to provide a source that backs up your assertion that a polity of about a million people would be considered minor in Mesoamerica? Because, frankly, Will's assertion that you "took me to the shed" over this issue, considering that you made such a fundamental gaffe, casts even more doubt on his general reliability. Help your friend out by providing sources to back it up. You can do it on another thread, of course, to avoid derailment.

[_William Schryver]

I wrote:

As for his [Nomad's] desire to see a debate between me and Metcalfe on the topic of the meaning and purpose of the KEP, I have to agree with him that I don't believe Brent would consent to such a thing. That said, lest there be any question whatsoever, I would welcome such an opportunity. Let Metcalfe publish his rebuttal to the arguments I present in August (even an e-publication of his counter-arguments would suffice), and then we can work out the terms and conditions of a public debate where we would each defend our respective arguments. I would consent to such an arrangement in a heartbeat.

Of course, from the very beginning, I had always envisioned a formal public debate, which is precisely why I continue to dismiss as patently ridiculous the notion of a podcast "chat".

Nope, what I'm talking about is a full-blown, previously advertised, on a stage, video-recorded for later distribution, high-stakes public debate.

Of course, the only plausible venue for such a debate would be a conference related to Mormon studies, such as Sunstone, FAIR, JWHA, MHA, etc. Anyone who believes otherwise is being disingenuous.

Although I would prefer to see Metcalfe (for once in his life) publish something; stake out some kind of formal position on the KEP, prior to debating him, I have (as anyone following along would already know) removed that pre-condition. He can maintain his silence on the topic forever, if he'd like. However, I do insist that I be permitted to publish (before any debate) the more detailed article (which expands on my FAIR presentation) that I have in process. My reasoning for this is that I want the audience, both live as well as those who subsequently watch the video of the debate) to have had an opportunity beforehand to be educated about the nature of the KEP/Book of Abraham controversy and the nature of my findings relative thereto. Only then will they be in a position to make an educated judgment about whose arguments (as delivered in the debate) are more persuasive.

Now, I have no doubt that the ever-predictable mob on this message board will continue to paint this as evasion; suggest that I am "afraid" of a debate with the venerable Metcalfe. So be it. But this debate will eventually take place--of that I am quite confident. Whether in 2011 or later, it really doesn't matter. I'm in no hurry. Metcalfe's historical reticence on this topic proves he is in no hurry. But the debate will happen. Metcalfe will eventually feel compelled to do it, notwithstanding his serious reservations about it, as well as the advice he has received from those who perceptively discern that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose from engaging in such an enterprise.

[_Paul Osborne]

Now, I have no doubt that the ever-predictable mob on this message board will continue to paint this as evasion

Well then I guess you'll have to put me with another mob because I don't think you're being evasive in not debating Brent under your prescribed conditions.

This no doubt puts me at odds with my fellow apostates. I think you have every right to state your terms and conditions before entering into a debate. I think my fellow apostates have been unreasonable.

Furthermore, I appreciate the work you do in exposing the KEP whether it be seen in a positive or negetive light. I take my hat off to you, William. You've worked hard and I recognize that.

Paul O

[_Aristotle Smith]

Numerous times I've seen people claim Brent was wrong, only to come back and admit he was actually right. Maklelan did it just last week.

Quick question Kevin,

Do you have a link for where maklelan admitted this? I normally don't care about such things, but after participating in that thread where maklelan talked about "textbook homoioteleuton" 6.022x10^23 times, I'd love to see him admit to being wrong about anything.

[_Kishkumen]

Do you have a link for where maklelan admitted this? I normally don't care about such things, but after participating in that thread where maklelan talked about "textbook homoioteleuton" 6.022x10^23 times, I'd love to see him admit to being wrong about anything.

I love the fact that with all of maklelan's displays of certitude and arrogance, after only having considered the documents for a few hours, Will recently pronounced mak's expertise in textual criticism as inapplicable to the question, whereas Will's own expertise in computer programming was in his mind crucial to understanding the KEP.

Truly chuckleworthy.

[_Gadianton]

I have an alternative theory about Will's hesitation to debate. I believe Will and Nomad may be telling the truth to an extent when they say that Will is not afraid of debating Brent. First of all, think about it: when has Will shown anything but the most reckless confidence in his own opinions? Second, when have the apologists ever believed that their team has lost? What will be said in the debate will be ultimately meaningless, the fact that Will faces off against Brent will equate to a victory over Satan himself in the minds of the apologists.

Will has stated that he wants to publish his detailed thesis before debating Brent. I think this is reasonable request. Think about this in terms of narrative. Did Daniel Webster debate Mr. Scratch while he was still in law school? No, that would have been anti-climactic. The Book of Abraham in some ways is the granddaddy of all apologetic topics. Somehow, Will has convinced the powers that be to allow him to carry the torch on this matter while still only a mid-tier apologist with no oversight, formal review of his material, or any questions asked at all it would seem; his thesis has been assumed by the apologists to end all Book of Abraham discussions. I think there is a natural way for Will's story of greatness to unfold here:

- take on the mantel of the most important Mopologetic topic as an "underdog"
- present his avant garde mopologetic theory at FAIR and establish his presence.
- publish his magnum opus detailing this theory, spreading his fame.
- the capstone to his career will be to debate Satan (Brent M) in person at the largest scale venue possible and win, which will secure his mopologetic immortality.

If the events play out in this order, it will be unlikely LoaP could ever achieve the same importance as Will. Also, Will at this point will probably have to be considered a senior apologist.

[_Simon Belmont]

We must remember that, without computer programmers, there would be no Mormon Discussions.

[_sock puppet]

We must remember that, without computer programmers, there would be no Mormon Discussions.

I agree with Simon. Mark this moment.

[_Paul Osborne]

Gadianton,

You are a wise man.

Paul O

[_sock puppet]

We must remember that, without computer programmers, there would be no Mormon Discussions.

Simon, it's time for you to come out of the closet. Confess to BKP that you have been in the closet.