50 replies to this topic

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

I've not responded further to Will's theories because I recently learned that John Larson of Mormon Expression is interested in interviewing me about the manuscripts in the BoAbr collection. I expressed openness to the request and began sifting through online forums for issues that may interest cybercitizens. I knew that Will's celebrated FAIR 2010 presentation would figure prominently, but I didn't expect to stumble across such a gracious offer from Will himself...

Quote

[William Schryver:] As for [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.... I would consent to such an arrangement in a heartbeat.

... and...

Quote

[William Schryver:] At any rate, I admit that the notion of a Schryver/Metcalfe debate is merely a fleeting fantasy. I suspect that, after a suitable period of silence, he'll finally just quietly agree with my findings and that will be the end of that.

Well, I'm happy to turn Will's "fleeting fantasy" into stark reality.

In short, Will, I accept your invitation to publicly discuss the BoAbr—and John Larson of Mormon Expression has agreed to stream it live over the Internet. He has also agreed to allow FAIR (or the organization of your choice) to subsequently distribute the Mormon Expression podcast.

I'd like our discussion to focus on three questions:

• Were Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2 dictated by Joseph Smith in early July 1835?
  
  
• Are the three Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language dependent on Abraham 1–3 and Facsimile 2?
  
  
• Was William W. Phelps—in lieu of Joseph Smith—the authorial mind behind of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project?

If I understand your thesis, you would answer each of these questions in the affirmative. I, rather obviously, disagree. Still, I'm confident that we can have a civil exchange of ideas.

Let me know when you're available for a recording session and I'll get you in touch with John.

All the best,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
———————————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Edited by Brent Metcalfe, 11 August 2010 - 09:50 PM.

[Mortal Man]

I think I can safely speak for everyone here in saying that we're all delighted at your acceptance of Will's offer Brent.

We eagerly look forward to this debate!

[William Schryver]

My “offer”?

Where, exactly did I “offer” anything?

I have read the quotes cited, and I see only that I expressed a willingness to engage in a hypothetical debate which someone else had suggested.

In view of such manifest exegetical deficiencies, one might well wonder why Mr. Metcalfe is apparently so willing to publicly debate anything.

Nevertheless, while I am most certainly not interested in some rinky-dink podcast chat of these very important issues, I will enthusiastically welcome a formal public debate with Mr. Brent Metcalfe on The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, according to the following general terms and conditions:

First of all, I will publish, within a reasonably short period of time, in a popular Mormon Studies journal (most likely The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture), a detailed article describing the findings upon which my FAIR presentation was based.

After that article is published, Mr. Metcalfe must publish, within a reasonably short period of time (in a journal of his choice) an article rebutting my arguments and evidence as presented in my previously published article.

Following the publication of the Metcalfe article, a mutually acceptable moderator will be selected, and arrangements made for a public debate of the merits of the opposing viewpoints, in a mutually acceptable venue, such as a Sunstone or FAIR conference.  The debate will be limited to the arguments previously presented in the published articles.  

The parameters of the debate will conform, in structure, to the long-established Lincoln/Douglas debating format, and according to the following time limits for each speech:

• Schryver Affirmative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes
  `
  
• Metcalfe cross-examination of Schryver – 10 minutes
  `
  
• 10 minute break
  `
  
• Metcalfe Negative Constructive Presentation – 40 minutes
  `
  
• Schryver cross-examination of Metcalfe – 10 minutes
  `
  
• 10 minute break
  `
  
• Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes
  `
  
• Metcalfe Negative Rebuttal – 30 minutes
  `
  
• Schryver Affirmative Rebuttal – 15 minutes
  

A total of 3 hours.

A formal contract stipulating the terms and conditions of the debate will be prepared, and upon its signing by both parties, the countdown to the debate will begin.

I look forward to the ongoing discussion of these matters and the opportunity to publicly debate the merits of our respective arguments.

Sincerely,

William Schryver

Edited by William Schryver, 12 August 2010 - 04:01 AM.

[John Larsen]

Although podcasting may indeed be rinky-dink, what I have volunteered to do is record and distribute the discussion unedited as well as host the live stream. Since Brent and Will are not conveniently collocated, an audio discussion might do for a more timely addressing of the issues rather than wait another year for a conference. Although the ex-Mormon conference is in October.

I don't see how an audio format would interfere with the Lincoln-Douglass format proposed by Will.

[William Schryver]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 05:16 AM, said:

Although podcasting may indeed be rinky-dink, what I have volunteered to do is record and distribute the discussion unedited as well as host the live stream. Since Brent and Will are not conveniently collocated, an audio discussion might do for a more timely addressing of the issues rather than wait another year for a conference. Although the ex-Mormon conference is in October.

I don't see how an audio format would interfere with the Lincoln-Douglass format proposed by Will.

No offense intended, John, but I am not willing to "play for peanuts" when it comes to these things.

Brent Metcalfe has never formally committed himself to any set of arguments concerning the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  I obviously have.  In order to "debate," there must necessarily be two established positions to be debated.  There is now, in the form of my summary presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference, at least an outline of my position.  I have therefore assumed the role of the "affirmative" interlocutor.  I will greatly elaborate on those arguments in my forthcoming published article, at which point Mr. Metcalfe (and the general public) will be able to consider those detailed arguments and accompanying evidence, and then, for the first time ever, publish his counter-position on the issues.

After the publication of these competing views, we will finally be in a position to consider the merits of those views, at which point in time a formal public debate will be appropriate.  I am confident that the public interest in these things warrants the formal debate format I have proposed.  Such a format is best adapted to an elucidation of the respective viewpoints, and will permit a substantial audience to consider the conflicting arguments.  I would expect that the debate could be both recorded and simultaneously webcast in order that interested parties worldwide will be enabled to participate in the proceedings.

I very much look forward to Mr. Metcalfe's acceptance of my "offer" to engage him in this public debate concerning the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Respectfully,

William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Yes, folks, as strange as it may seem, my having significantly raised the stakes from Metcalfe's initial proposition has been met with ... charges of cowardice?

That's right.

Only in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park© are such twistings of reality possible, thus proving again that there is no delusion the exmormon cannot embrace, given sufficient motivation.

At any rate, in light of a few ignorant comments read there concerning the format I have proposed, it might be profitable for some people to enlighten themselves as to the long-standing tradition of Lincoln/Douglas style debate in this country; a style of debate designed for two interlocutors, according to the pattern established by its namesakes in the famous 1858 Illinois senatorial debates.

Read here: Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

The format of these debates is by tradition, and many high school forensics students are quite familiar with it: Lincoln Douglas Debate Format

The Affirmative Interlocutor (AI) always begins and ends the debate.  The first speech is called the "Affirmative Constructive" and consists of the participant making his case, after which the Negative Interlocutor (NI) cross-examines the AI for a set period of time.  The second speech is the "Negative Constructive" and typically consists of the participant addressing/contesting the Affirmative case, following which the AI cross-examines the NI for a set period of time.  This is then followed by three rebuttal speeches, two shorter affirmative speeches preceding and following a longer negative one.

It is a traditional and extremely elegant form of public debate still practiced today on account of its enduring popularity.

Though certainly my knees will be shaking the entire time; my hands trembling; sweat dripping from my befuddled brow, and my heart pounding a fevered beat throughout, yet I look forward to the inestimable opportunity to stand in the presence of the master of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, notwithstanding my admitted unworthiness.

Edited by William Schryver, 12 August 2010 - 09:26 AM.

[John Larsen]

Your demands do seem a little onerous given the subject matter at hand. I can see why one would wonder...

[William Schryver]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Your demands do seem a little onerous given the subject matter at hand. I can see why one would wonder...

Which "demands" might those be?  Do you mean the pre-condition that Metcalfe actually publish something beforehand and thereby commit himself to a position?  In what way is such a condition "onerous?"

Do you not understand that a debate consists in the contest of competing ideas?  

As I observed above, I have now presented a very abbreviated summary version of the full case I have yet to make in a formal journal article.  When that article appears (which will occur within a reasonably short period of time), then Mr. Metcalfe will be able to assess it and respond to it in like fashion.  When he does so, then we will be provided with our two competing ideas, and thus able to debate.  Until then, we know nothing of Metcalfe's position on these matters, except some vague sense that he disagrees with my summary exposition as delivered at the FAIR conference.  Who knows--it's entirely possible that, after I present my full case in printed format, he will be less inclined to disagree with it, thus making the debate unnecessary.  Or, it is entirely possible that his rebuttal will persuade me.  Until then, we are engaging in conjecture in a vacuum of information.

Let us therefore allow this time for the discovery of the two positions.  I'm certain that there are a great many people who are very anxious to finally see in print Mr. Metcalfe's long-awaited arguments vis-a-vis the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  I know I am.

[John Larsen]

William Schryver, on 12 August 2010 - 10:07 AM, said:

Which "demands" might those be?  Do you mean the pre-condition that Metcalfe actually publish something beforehand and thereby commit himself to a position?  In what way is such a condition "onerous?"

Do you not understand that a debate consists in the contest of competing ideas?  

As I observed above, I have now presented a very abbreviated summary version of the full case I have yet to make in a formal journal article.  When that article appears (which will occur within a reasonably short period of time), then Mr. Metcalfe will be able to assess it and respond to it in like fashion.  When he does so, then we will be provided with our two competing ideas, and thus able to debate.  Until then, we know nothing of Metcalfe's position on these matters, except some vague sense that he disagrees with my summary exposition as delivered at the FAIR conference.  Who knows--it's entirely possible that, after I present my full case in printed format, he will be less inclined to disagree with it, thus making the debate unnecessary.  Or, it is entirely possible that his rebuttal will persuade me.  Until then, we are engaging in conjecture in a vacuum of information.

Let us therefore allow this time for the discovery of the two positions.  I'm certain that there are a great many people who are very anxious to finally see in print Mr. Metcalfe's long-awaited arguments vis-a-vis the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  I know I am.

I'm talking about your rules of debate. Not even presidential debates are run with that kind of structure. Seems a little over the top to me.

[gtaggart]

I see nothing wrong with Will's "demands." If we're going to have a debate, hells bells, let's have a debate with some of format geared toward getting at the truth. But right now, I'm in favor of baby steps of the sort Brent Metcalfe has been saying he is going to take any day now, if only he can find his other shoe: That is, he needs to publish his theories/arguments/analysis of the KEP. Yes, he can wait until Will publishes his findings (per Will's post), but until he actually sticks his neck out, er, publishes his analysis, all the debate about the format of the debate and the posturing about posturing about "calling Will's bluff" on the other board is pointless and just plain--well, I have three chickens in my backyard, so a word comes to mind--as are the nits Brent has attempted to pick from Will's FAIR presentation.

The one who STILL needs to put up--and his acolytes know this--is Sir Metcalfe. Baby steps Brent. Baby steps.

Edited by gtaggart, 12 August 2010 - 11:38 AM.

[gtaggart]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'm talking about your rules of debate. Not even presidential debates are run with that kind of structure. Seems a little over the top to me.

And Presidential debates suck as a result.

Edited by gtaggart, 12 August 2010 - 11:50 AM.

[William Schryver]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'm talking about your rules of debate. Not even presidential debates are run with that kind of structure. Seems a little over the top to me.

Poppycock!  Political debates don't take place until there is a list of conditions several pages long!  Where have you been?

In any event, I will make it easier for my publication-challenged potential opponent: he merely has to e-publish his counter-arguments--on his own moribund website, if it suits him.  I will be publishing my article in a peer-reviewed journal, but he may merely post his somewhere in cyberspace in order to meet the condition I have requested.

Fair enough?

Edited by William Schryver, 12 August 2010 - 11:45 AM.

[gtaggart]

William Schryver, on 12 August 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Poppycock!  Political debates don't take place until there is a list of conditions several pages long!  Where have you been?

In any event, I will make it easier for my publication-challenged potential opponent: he merely has to e-publish his counter-arguments--on his own moribund website, if it suits him.  I will be publishing my article in a peer-reviewed journal, but he may merely post it somewhere in cyberspace in order to meet the condition I have requested.

Fair enough?

But Will, he's busy, don't you know. Why at the cesspool Graham just posted an e-mail from Brent that he's been busy developing a video game console. If memory serves, I think he's been working on the console for around 25 years. But I'm sure he'll publish his analysis of the KEP once he's done. Maybe by the Prophet's birthday in 2015.

Edited by gtaggart, 12 August 2010 - 11:50 AM.

[John Larsen]

William Schryver, on 12 August 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

In any event, I will make it easier for my publication-challenged potential opponent:

Wait a minute, what again did you publish?

[gtaggart]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 11:54 AM, said:

Wait a minute, what again did you publish?

He gave a presentation at FAIR on the KEP. He is GOING to publish in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Restoration Scripture--see his post above. To my knowledge, Metcalfe is still looking for his pencil.

[John Larsen]

gtaggart, on 12 August 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

He gave a presentation at FAIR on the KEP. He is GOING to publish in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Restoration Scripture--see his post above. To my knowledge, Metcalfe is still looking for his pencil.

A presentation at FAIR is not a publication. Why hold Metcalfe to the publication criteria when Will himself has not met it? Or does Metcalfe merely need to announce his intent to publish, like Will did?

[John Larsen]

gtaggart, on 12 August 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

But Will, he's busy, don't you know. Why at the cesspool Graham just posted an e-mail from Brent that he's been busy developing a video game console. If memory serves, I think he's been working on the console for around 25 years.

This is factually wrong. I would expect more from you then passing along rumors about someones RL goings on and trying to spice them up with your recollection. Shame on you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'm talking about your rules of debate. Not even presidential debates are run with that kind of structure. Seems a little over the top to me.

With all due respect, there are plenty of things about current presidential debate structures which annoy me to no end.

I think it boils down to this: people can accuse Will of trying to get out of a debate by making difficult or unreasonable demands. However, a few things stand out to me that call this view into question. For a long time Will has commented about the length of time Brent has had access to photographs, etc. and has ostensibly been preparing a project on the BoA, etc. To date, though, we haven't seen results. Will has put some of his work out on the table, so he's in a somewhat more vulnerable position in that his hand is visible but Brent's cards are still covered. I actually like the idea of asking Brent to get something out on the table in order to even the score a bit before the debate. For one thing, it will allow onlookers to become better acquainted with the respective positions and thus better able follow the debate itself. I hope Brent accepts the offer, it seems to me like a fair one.

[Daniel Peterson]

This seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think it only fair that Brent be required to put something on the table as well as Will.

From my perspective, Brent has a lengthy history of critiquing (or dismissing) the positions of others, but he has been very reluctant for decades now to stake out a position of his own that he would then have to defend.  This is good guerrilla strategy, but a prospective opponent in a public debate is under absolutely no obligation to consent to it.  (My favorite example of Brent's reluctance comes from many years ago, when Bill Hamblin asked Brent what seems to me a very simple, straightforward, and basic question:  Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there were no Book of Mormon plates, did Joseph Smith realize that, or did he imagine that they existed?  Brent declined to answer the question, which he insisted, was too simplistic for a sophisticated thinker like himself -- though, apparently, it was perfectly adequate for simpletons like Professor Hamblin and myself.)

Anyway, there is, so far as I can tell, nothing written in the stars requiring that Latter-day Saints always play defense.

[gtaggart]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 12:29 PM, said:

This is factually wrong. I would expect more from you then passing along rumors about someones RL goings on and trying to spice them up with your recollection. Shame on you.

Shame on me? Did Graham not publish Metcalfe's e-mail on the the other board? Has Metcalfe had great photos of the KEP for 25 years (unlike Will who got them within the last year IIRC)? Has Will at least put his theories out there in a relatively complete and coherent fashion? Can you point me to where Metcalfe has done anything resembling same? Shame on you for not getting the joke.

Edited by gtaggart, 12 August 2010 - 01:27 PM.