50 replies to this topic

[gtaggart]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

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?

Read Will's initial response to your OP. Track records are everything: Will announced he would make a great presentation at FAIR. He did. He said he would post videos of that presentation on the Internet. He did. He has since announced that he will publish his findings in a more complete fashion both in print and on a blog. He will.

Brent? Well, some seven years ago, he announced on ZLMB that he would be publishing his critical text of the KEP--of which he has had great photos for 25 years--on or by the Prophet's 200th birthday-December 23, 2005 for the history impaired--and it's now August 12, 2010. I'm not aware of critical text of the KEP published by Mr. Metcalfe. Are you? Nuff said.

[LifeOnaPlate]

John Larsen, on 12 August 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

A presentation at FAIR is not a publication. Why hold Metcalfe to the publication criteria when Will himself has not met it?

No one is trying to "hold Metcalfe to the publication criteria when Will himself has not met it," re-read Will's proposal. The important thing, as Will's later adjustment indicates, is that each participant have a working theory with some data on the table.

Moreover, if Metcalfe's position is so sound and "truth" or "accuracy" are the important things to consider, why would he decline these stipulations? Or does he have some ace in the hole he wants to spring for effect in a public debate?



Now, back to my other thread, "Yes, We Have No Bananas."

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 12 August 2010 - 01:44 PM.

[William Schryver]

LifeOnaPlate, on 12 August 2010 - 12:49 PM, said:

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.

Well said, Blair.

I will even go further and promise to e-publish a pre-publication version of my article, after which Metcalfe can reciprocate.  Then there will be two competing ideas, along with the accompanying arguments and evidence, to constitute the basis of the debate.

[LifeOnaPlate]

William Schryver, on 12 August 2010 - 01:47 PM, said:

Well said, Blair.

I will even go further and promise to e-publish a pre-publication version of my article, after which Metcalfe can reciprocate.  Then there will be two competing ideas, along with the accompanying arguments and evidence, to constitute the basis of the debate.

I think it's entirely reasonable, we'll see if Brent wishes to engage.

[USU78]

Oops

Edited by USU78, 12 August 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[USU78]

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...

Wait a minute there, JL.  Metcalfe has never published anything on the KEP.  What he has proposed is that he be allowed to spend his time playing defense, while Schryver plays offense.  Metcalfe needs to step up to the plate and take public positions in a format that can then be challenged . . . as Schryver has done and has committed to continue doing until his findings and conclusions are submitted in full.  The Bears didn't get to play only defense when Butkus was running people down and notifying next of kin.  If they did, they'd've won every game.  Bobby Douglas sometimes had to take the field, where he'd do nothing but suck up the place, throwing picks, and knocking down receivers with uncatchable balls thrown at 120 mph.

Metcalfe has to play both offense and defense if this is to be a fair contest.

He can claim all he wants that him pretending to be the Butkus of the internet, knocking down other folks' passes and stuffing the run, but he's got to show that he's not Bobby Douglas, too, if his argument is to be credited.

[Chris Smith]

USU78, on 12 August 2010 - 03:12 PM, said:

Metcalfe has never published anything on the KEP.

Not entirely true.  At his Mormon Scripture Studies website he has e-published a brief essay titled "Nibley's Illusory Variants".  He has also e-published a sample of his work on the critical text project.  Years ago he co-authored with Dan Vogel an essay titled "Joseph Smith's Scriptural Cosmology" that contained some material on the KEP.  That can be read in Signature Books's The Word of God collection.  And finally, he has also presented on the KEP at the Ex-Mormon Conference.  The audio and handout for that presentation are still available online.  So while his publication record on the KEP is spotty and far from comprehensive, I'm not sure it's fair to say he has never published anything on the subject-- especially if we're counting William's presentation as a publication.

Edited by Chris Smith, 12 August 2010 - 03:28 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 12 August 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

Not entirely true.  At his Mormon Scripture Studies website he has e-published a brief essay titled "Nibley's Illusory Variants".  He has also e-published a sample of his work on the critical text project.  Years ago he co-authored with Dan Vogel an essay titled "Joseph Smith's Scriptural Cosmology" that contained some material on the KEP.  That can be read in Signature Books's The Word of God collection.  And finally, he has also presented on the KEP at the Ex-Mormon Conference.  The audio and handout for that presentation are still available online.  So while his publication record on the KEP is spotty and far from comprehensive, I'm not sure it's fair to say he has never published anything on the subject-- especially if we're counting William's presentation as a publication.

Of course, I am aware of all these items.  And, conscious of the content of each of them, I will state again, with emphasis, that Metcalfe has yet to commit to anything even approaching a coherent position as to the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers!  Furthermore, his presentation at the Exmormon Conference in 2006 (where I was in attendance) was virtually devoid of any substantive information whatsoever (unless you count his veiled insinuation that Hugh Nibley was a child molester as "substantive information.")

I invite everyone interested to review each link posted above and assess for themselves the validity of my observations.

[USU78]

Chris Smith, on 12 August 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

Not entirely true.  At his Mormon Scripture Studies website he has e-published a brief essay titled "Nibley's Illusory Variants".  He has also e-published a sample of his work on the critical text project.  Years ago he co-authored with Dan Vogel an essay titled "Joseph Smith's Scriptural Cosmology" that contained some material on the KEP.  That can be read in Signature Books's The Word of God collection.  And finally, he has also presented on the KEP at the Ex-Mormon Conference.  The audio and handout for that presentation are still available online.  So while his publication record on the KEP is spotty and far from comprehensive, I'm not sure it's fair to say he has never published anything on the subject-- especially if we're counting William's presentation as a publication.

My apologies, and thanks for running this down, Chris.  In your opinion, do these offerings constitute together an expression of his comprehensive findings and conclusions regarding the KEP?

[PacMan]

Quote

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.

A cynic is but a critic without either principle or something to defend.  A couple interesting quotes on the matter:

“There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing.”
- Maya Angelou

"Cynicism, like gullibility, is a symptom of underdeveloped critical faculties."
— Jamie Whyte (Crimes Against Logic)

"Cynicism is nothing more than soul-rot. It’s nothing more than a coward dressed up in a tweed blazer smoking a Peterson pipe. It is dismissive and disengaged while looking invested and astute."
— Matthew Perryman Jones

"Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try."
— Peggy Noonan

An investment without skin in the game is but an illusory ponzi-scheme - weak, fake, and ultimately self-degenerating.  I am sure Brent will publish.  But I agree with Will that any such debate wait until both parties do so.  This isn't the 3rd grade play ground.  Make the discussion focused, intelligent, and meaningful.  There's good reason that the courts REQUIRE discovery, because "surprises" are but stupid, hollow, and unhelpful theatrics.  Get writing, boys.  As for everyone else, let's not pitfall any party into a categorization due to our own impatience that is ultimately unbecoming or unproductive.

PacMan

Edited by PacMan, 12 August 2010 - 06:28 PM.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

You’ve had it too easy. FAIR conference doesn’t have respondents. What’s up with that?

Dan Peterson and I debated on TV, and neither of us had a clue what the other would say.

For years I have given papers at Sunstone Symposiums, Mormon History Association Meetings, John Whitmer Historical Association Meetings, and not once did I know what my respondent was going to say. And most often it was an apologist like Dan Peterson, Blake Ostler, or Mike Quinn.

On another occasion I sat and debated with Van Hale on his radio show and took callers’ questions without any preparation whatsoever.

You already know Brent’s position on these issues. You’ve been debating him for years.

All you need to know is what your position is.

[Mike Reed]

Delete

Edited by Mike Reed, 12 August 2010 - 08:07 PM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Okay, enough with the fawning... over me. You're all just too kind.

Will, you may be on to something...

... Since most netizens couldn't care less about two autodidacts wrangling over recondite text-critical nuances, I suggest we add the requirement that we both MUST complete a PhD program in Textual Studies at the university of our choice in a reasonably short period of time (I choose the UW because I can see it from my house).

But all this sounds rather silly doesn't it, Will.

Note my language: I mentioned a <<discussion>>, not the epic <<debate>> that you evidently fancy. I envision a candid, civil exchange of ideas—that's all.

You clearly have the upper hand, Will. I know nothing of your as-yet-undisclosed sources that support your conclusive conclusions; in fact, the sources I do know indicate quite a different scenario.

You're the one who raised the prospect of an exchange. I'm confident that I can convey my ideas and sources clearly via a podcast (or any other venue, for that matter)... are you?

Best regards,

</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, 12 August 2010 - 09:49 PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Hi, Dan.  It was good to see you the other day.

Dan Vogel, on 12 August 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

Dan Peterson and I debated on TV, and neither of us had a clue what the other would say.

We had a discussion on television, hosted by Rod Decker.  He posed the questions, and we didn't address each other directly much, if at all.  I wouldn't consider it a debate.  Besides, you've published more than enough for me to know what your position was.

Dan Vogel, on 12 August 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

For years I have given papers at Sunstone Symposiums, Mormon History Association Meetings, John Whitmer Historical Association Meetings, and not once did I know what my respondent was going to say. And most often it was an apologist like Dan Peterson, Blake Ostler, or Mike Quinn.

Academic presentations with responses don't constitute a debate.  Certainly not in any formal sense.

Dan Vogel, on 12 August 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

On another occasion I sat and debated with Van Hale on his radio show and took callers’ questions without any preparation whatsoever.

I've done that sort of thing a lot, too.  Including Van Hale's program several times.  I wouldn't consider it a "debate."

Will is proposing a debate.  A formal debate, of pretty standard design, with rules.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Brent Metcalfe, on 12 August 2010 - 08:59 PM, said:

You're the one who raised the prospect of an exchange. I'm confident that I can convey my ideas and sources clearly via a podcast (or any other venue, for that matter)... are you?

Actually the prospect of a "debate" was raised, refer back to the original post in which you quoted Will as saying he would "debate" the matter.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Blair,

Call it what you will (no pun intended).

I'm confident that I grasp the relevant sources. I'm equally confident—based on his FAIR 2010 presentation—that Will doesn't.

My 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

[Brent Metcalfe]

Don't know how I missed this gem...

Will accuses me of <<insinuat[ing] that Hugh Nibley was a child molester>>.

Let me be clear: I've never intimated that Hugh <<was a child molester>>—never. (Do the moderators of this board endorse Schryver's outrageous claim?)

Yet Will is your gift to BoAbr studies? Good luck... you'll need it.

Ciao,

</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

[William Schryver]

Metcalfe:

Quote

I mentioned a <<discussion>>, not the epic <<debate>> that you evidently fancy. I envision a candid, civil exchange of ideas—that's all.

You specified in your opening post of this thread that you were interested in a “discussion” concerning the following three issues:

Quote

• 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?

Any discussion of these three items would, as you well know, require substantial reference to not only the content of the documents, but very much so upon the actual documents themselves.  In my abbreviated summary of my findings at the FAIR conference, I employed almost 200 slides in order to illustrate the text-critical elements upon which my conclusions are based.  Any discussion of my conclusions would necessarily entail a substantial amount of reference to actual images from the documents.  A putative audio-only “discussion” of these things, over the internet, between someone located in North Carolina, another person residing in Washington state, and yet another in Cedar City, UT would obviously preclude any reference to the essential visual materials, thus rendering impossible any effective case-building when it comes to the text-critical elements of the manuscripts.  The debate I envision would have to take place in such a setting where the images could be displayed to the audience.  Any “discussion” devoid of the possibility of such visually based reference materials would be virtually meaningless in terms of the audience’s capacity to grasp what was being said, and to what specific arguments refer.

Therefore I propose a setting for our debate where both of us will be able to provide such “visual aids” as are necessary to demonstrate our respective interpretations.  Such a scenario is possible in a “live” and “in person” debate such as I have proposed.  Quite simply, it is not possible via a podcast where nothing of a visual nature can be included in the discussion.

Furthermore, your proposed “discussion” smacks of a set-up, given the extraordinary historic hostility of the putative “moderator” (John  Larsen) who has, on several occasions, expressed a profound antipathy towards me.  John may very well be a fine choice for discussions between most people, but his pronounced (and frequently displayed) animosity towards me gives me significant cause for concern that the game would be at least subtly rigged in such a way as to make the playing field unequal.  Such concerns would not exist in a live debate scenario such as I have proposed—thus its appeal to me as a preferred setting for our “candid, civil exchange of ideas.”  Besides, I guarantee you won't find my candor to your liking, since I intend to conclusively demonstrate the fatal flaws in the arguments previously made by Richard Howard, Edward Ashment, and Christopher Smith (notice you're not on the list, having never produced anything yet that one could cite as being "the arguments of Brent Metcalfe").

Quote

You clearly have the upper hand, Will. I know nothing of your as-yet-undisclosed sources that support your conclusive conclusions; in fact, the sources I do know indicate quite a different scenario.

If so, then all the better for you to await the publication of the detailed exposition of my arguments and evidence.  Heaven forbid that this perception of me possessing the “upper hand” should taint our eventual debate of these issues.

Quote

You're the one who raised the prospect of an exchange.

Did I?  Or did I merely express a willingness to participate in a hypothetical public debate suggested by someone else?  Your penchant for subtle misrepresentation remains as consistent as ever.

Nevertheless, as I have made perfectly clear, I would enthusiastically welcome such a public debate as I have now proposed, and I look forward to such a debate eventually taking place.  It is high time the “Metcalfe Myth” be seen for what it really is in the glaring light of such a contest of ideas.  When you feel yourself ready to play for the big stakes, on a real stage, under the bright lights of significant public scrutiny; taking, for the first time ever, a committed position as to your interpretations of the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, then I will be more than willing to stand on that stage with you and formally debate not only the questions you have proposed, but also those I will myself set forth.  Until then, your posturing is something that will play well only among the indiscriminate and the uninformed.

As I have noted almost incessantly for the past year and more, you have never staked out a position on any of this stuff.  You have displayed some capacity for the lowest levels of text criticism, crafting an occasional transcription here and there, niggling over a pen stroke or an erasure.  But you have never once produced a coherent argument concerning any of the big issues surrounding the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

You are a consummate blowhard who has spent the past twenty-five years wrapping yourself in the security blanket of your previously exclusive access to the images of the KEP.  That exclusivity now evaporated, the days of the “Metcalfe Myth” are numbered, and you will soon be faced with the stark choice of fading into the background of this discussion or otherwise finally producing something in the way of substantive argumentation.  

I have, after only having access to the complete corpus of original sources since February of this year, already placed in the marketplace of ideas a larger quantity of substantive arguments than you have produced in a quarter-century!  Produce something, anything we can look to as the “Metcalfe Position” on these matters and then we’ll be in a position to debate.  In the meantime, I will place into the public eye a fully articulated defense of the arguments to which I referred in my presentation of a week ago.

Quote

I'm confident that I grasp the relevant sources. I'm equally confident—based on his FAIR 2010 presentation—that Will doesn't.

Bold words for one who has yet to demonstrate any grasp whatsoever of the “relevant sources.”

Quote

Will accuses me of <<insinuat[ing] that Hugh Nibley was a child molester>>.

Let me be clear: I've never intimated that Hugh <<was a child molester>>—never. (Do the moderators of this board endorse Schryver's outrageous claim?)

Actually, my exact words (and I selected them deliberately) were:

Quote

Furthermore, his presentation at the Exmormon Conference in 2006 (where I was in attendance) was virtually devoid of any substantive information whatsoever (unless you count his veiled insinuation that Hugh Nibley was a child molester as "substantive information.")

Of course, you know precisely what I’m talking about!  Else why did you have the Exmormon Foundation people perform a crude excision of your clever “off-the-cuff” indiscretion from the recorded version of your Q&A session?  (And yes, I can demonstrate that an excision was made and where it occurred, if you’d like.)

You see, I was there.  I remember what you said.  I remember how the audience lapped it up.  You enjoyed the adulation that the remark produced at the time, but it is obvious that reflection caused you to realize that you didn’t want such a slip of the tongue preserved in the public record, hence your obvious request that that portion of the recording be cut from the published version.

You won’t have that luxury in a public debate with me such as I have proposed.  I will hold you to all of your misconceptions about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as well as any indiscrete comments you might make in the heat of the moment.

So, again, when you’re ready to perform on the big stage for the big stakes, you let me know.  I’ll be ready.  Until then, I’ll go about my business preparing the case I can make that virtually every thing previously believed about the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is wrong.

[Brent Metcalfe]

*sigh!*

Hi Will,

Evidently in your imaginary world not only did I implicate Hugh in child molestation, but I also conspired with folks at the Exmormon Foundation to permanently eradicate the evidence...

Your evidence for this scurrilous claim?... I can only assume email messages and phone records that are no longer extant—in fact, they are so no longer extant that the only place they exist is in your paranoid fantasies.

Here's a clue: If you want to find the conspiratorial email communiqués and phone records, check Area 51, right next to the cryogenic chambers containing Elvis and Walt—oh, and on the same shelf as your missing BoAbr manuscript from early July 1835.

Will, you're an apologetic loose canon with a lousy aim. Yet you've been given unprecedented access to some of Mormonism's most esteemed documents, and now the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is going to publish your unmitigated nonsense in its official publications...

I doubt that Neal would have approved.

Cheers,

</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

[PacMan]

From the bleachers:

As cute and adorable as the back and forth sniggering is, I hope that those whom hold to a preference of a no-holds-bar/surprise debate between Will and Brent can see why it would be fruitless, if not worse.  The fact of the matter is that the material is technical, nuanced, and is difficult to digest.  Without pre-written stances and responses, such a theatrical farce would only beg utter confusion.  Imagine if our justice system disregarded complaints and answers and went straight to direct and cross-examinations.  What a nightmare.

-PacMan

P.S.  At least decide which referencing system is going to be used.  If I recall, Nibley created one and Brent has used his own.  For the papers and debate, pick one.  And if you can't agree, then flip a coin.  But streamline the process.  I'm really hoping that the discussion will be one for the ages.