Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

[_Kishkumen]

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

Well, in that case, he just may have a point.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__80

He admitted he was wrong about whether a word was written as "house" or "home." Brent provided plenty of text critical evidence that rendered his argument untenable and he conceded trhe point.

Incidentally, I also forgot to mention Brent's correction of Michael Rhodes during a FAIR conference a few years ago. Rhodes had argued along the same lines as John Gee, regarding the KEP characters being written after the english translation. Brent went up to him after the presentation and showed him the color images on his laptop and asked him if he wanted to reconsider his poistion, which he did!

Mike Ash was there as his witness.

Seriously, it seems like every time LDS apologetics coughs up a new hero to be, BRent shuts him down as quickly as he's finished with the presentation. This is true of LDS scholars like Nibley, Gee, Hauglid, Rhodes and Maklelan. His record against them is nothing short of astounding and they've never been able to show he is wrong on any given point, no matter how significant. All they've done is rely on rumors about how he's an anti-Mormon out to destroy their Church, therefore he must be lying. This is why the non-scholar idiot named Will Schryver was desperate to "change the game." After telling us for years that textual criticism and forensic evidence will break the critics, now we're told all of that is irrelevant since the issue boils down to expertise in computer programming.

This is ironic given the apologists' demands for credentials. Simon still attacks Brent for lack of credentials. What are Will's credentials? He's a fifty year-old college drop out who tried to go to school, once upon a time, to learn Hebrew. The only evidence we have that he has done any "professional" work as a programmer is from the testimony of an anonymous person claiming he knows Will was hired to do some programming work for his company twenty years ago. This is another DJ Nelson scenario mixed with a dash of Wells Jakeman. Two idiots whose credentials were propped up only by the testimony of faithful brethren.

[_harmony]

Seriously, it seems like every time LDS apologetics coughs up a new hero to be, BRent shuts him down as quickly as he's finished with the presentation. This is true of LDS scholars like Nibley, Gee, Hauglid, Rhodes and Maklelan. His record against them is nothing short of astounding and they've never been able to show he is wrong on any given point, no matter how significant.

Maybe the problem is Brent's too much of a gentleman. If he corrected in the middle of their public presentation, at least they wouldn't be able to deny his corrections.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe the problem is Brent's too much of a gentleman. If he corrected in the middle of their public presentation, at least they wouldn't be able to deny his corrections.

He rightly understands that this kind of display would only reinforce their prejudice against him. And, it is spectacularly bad form.

[_Kevin Graham]

Maybe the problem is Brent's too much of a gentleman. If he corrected in the middle of their public presentation, at least they wouldn't be able to deny his corrections.

He rightly understands that this kind of display would only reinforce their prejudice against him. And, it is spectacularly bad form.

It doesn't really matter, they'll always hate him because of what he represents. Truth and reason. These have always represented the bane of the LDS testimony so he will always be viewed as a threat to the tribe.

[_harmony]

Maybe the problem is Brent's too much of a gentleman. If he corrected in the middle of their public presentation, at least they wouldn't be able to deny his corrections.

He rightly understands that this kind of display would only reinforce their prejudice against him. And, it is spectacularly bad form.

I wasn't criticizing his gentlemanliness, Kishie Ku. I was simply pointing out that a public correction would go a long way towards shutting them up.

[_Kishkumen]

I wasn't criticizing his gentlemanliness, Kishie Ku. I was simply pointing out that a public correction would go a long way towards shutting them up.

He probably thinks it is to his benefit in the long run not to provoke or embarrass these guys.

[_Aristotle Smith]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50900-dittography-in-the-abraham-translation-manuscripts/page__st__80

He admitted he was wrong about whether a word was written as "house" or "home." Brent provided plenty of text critical evidence that rendered his argument untenable and he conceded trhe point.

Thanks.

[_beastie]

Paul,

You may be right. Will's ego knows no bounds, so he probably does think he can best Brent. But if you are right, then he misspoke when the idea of a debate first came up. because he clearly insinuated he would do it gladly and quickly.

by the way, Nomad and Simon, notice how fellow exmormons can accept differences of opinions without attacking one another's lack of belief? See the stark difference between how we reacted to Paul's dissent and how Will reacted to Don's dissent? How do you feel about the fact that your hero cast doubt on Don's testimony simply because Don is doubtful about his theory?

If you both continue to refuse to answer, I'll know why. There is no answer you feel comfortable giving. Apparently, the instinct to follow the leader is so strongly ingrained in Mormons it even extends to a situation like this. Don't speak evil of Will, whatever you do. Don't criticize Will, whatever you do. Of course you know if you do he will insinuate that you lack belief, as well. I guess dissenting from Will is the first step to apostasy.

[_Paul Osborne]

beastie,

There is a lot of pressure on William coming from all sides. Not only does he have the pressure of the critics, but far worse, he has the pressure from within his own camp. William knows better than anyone that he is an outsider on his team because he has no scholarly credentials! He's been allowed to pitch in a new game and is surrounded by guys who can bat him down and turn on him at the drop of a hat. One foul word from John Gee and William is thrown out of the game. William must be on pins and needles because everything is on the line for him. It's an all or nothing proposition and his testimony is hanging in the balance. His life, family, religion is all on the line as he watches his theory either catch on or get rejected.

In view of the stress and pressure upon William Schyrver, I think it would be more than charitable of us apostates to ease up a bit and allow him some breathing room. Let him adjust to his new surroundings of being a Book of Abraham apologetic star! Uneducated William has taken a huge plunge into the Mormon pool of scholars and the faithful Mormon sharks may simply devour him without any help from us, least of all Brent who is probably the most polite critic in this whole fight.

I think William should be commended for sticking his neck out. It's clearly on the chopping block. He must be quite nervous about whether his own brethren will end up turning on him. God, that must be stressful.

Paul O