Kep Apologetics

[coolrok7]

Hi Kevin, coolrok7 here, its been awhile since we chatted. I left a pm in case your interested. Just started reading this this morning.

[Xander]

Someone just brought this to my attention. I guess I missed this from the first page. Wade said:

I am sorry, but the person on this board that I would least trust to fairly and accurately represent an opponents arguments is Kevin Graham, and this even when, or particularly when, he is using carefully selected quotes that he goes on to self-servingly editorialize about.

Wade, is this really how you want to try salvaging the credibility of William's claims? I presented evidence and you should address it if you want to say anything at all about the post. You don't get to tell me, in my thread, that we should all move along and ignore the points I raised while you accuse me of being untrustworthy without providing a single shred of evidence. As much as I have said describing these source documents, you should be able to find something that is demonstrably false. Otherwise, you wouldn't have the audacity to claim I am untrustworthy. So I anxiously await your numerous examples. I promise to apologize and concede the error, if in fact, you do manage to point to a single example.

The evidence I presented in the opening post is irrefutable. It has remained irrefutable for the past four years, which is why Will has never attempted to address it and it is why his loyalists- typically, you, Pahoran, Loran and "Nomad" - attack me for bringing it up. Instead of dealing with the evidence, you inform your audience that in your "opinion", I am the one who cannot be trusted on this subject. Well, we all know you have an opinion, but do you have evidence to support it?

As such, I would encourage anyone who is interested, to go to the thread Kevin linked to, and read all of Will's comments in context, letting him speak for himself.

To suggest that I have somehow prevented William to "speak for himself" on his home board, is bizarre, and there is nothing in those links that would help you defend Will's abject ignorance on this issue. I have been trying to get him to address this for years. Every time he'd grace us with his presence on the other forum I'd immediately remind him that I was still waiting for him to address his errors on numerous points in the numerous threads I had started for him. The example in this thread is just one of many.

(Ironically, the main message of the OP for the thread Kevin linked to, is instead of getting things second or third hand from critics regarding what a certain LDS scholar has said, go and hear the scholar speak for himself.)

The "main message of that OP" isn't the issue. It is William's blatant misrepresentation of Manuscript 2 found in the link. I provided the link to the original exchange so people can judge for themselves. I don't think they need your rhetoric to sway them one way or another.

To me, it is also bad form to reach way back in time to an old discussion, spin the characterization of that discussion decidedly in one's own favor, then conveniently present counter-arguments to the caricature, knowing full well that one's opponent isn't here to correct, clarify, or present counters to the counter-arguments.

If any of this were true, then we both know you'd be excited to know that I've given you and William a great opportunity to discredit me. But you can't make an argument to that effect because, as I said, there is no way to defend William's misrepresentation of this source document. He took advantage of the fact that no one in his audience at the time had access to the document, so he was free to say whatever he wanted. Now that I have made the document free to anyone who wants to see, William's argument and credibility has been exposed. This bothers you, I understand. But don't blame me for this. No one made Will misrepresent the document. He did that on his own and he should be held accountable, especially since he is constantly presenting himself as an authority on this subject.

But it is interesting that you have no problem with Will using a statement from a RLDS historian forty years ago, to base a series of attacks against all other critics who never argued what he insisted. But if any of Will's critic's point to something he said just four years ago... well, that's just "bad form." How is this not a double standard?

As a favor to Kevin, let's forget his thinly disguised attack against the caricature of what Will allegedly argued over 4 years ago, and start the thread at this point anew,

I'm not interested in baseless opinions from Will's loyalists. I'm interested in dealing with evidence. My opinion is based on evidence presented in these threads. You have no evidence to accuse me of any of the things for which William is clearly guilty - otherwise you'd present it.

But you miss the point here. The point isn't that WIll should be considered infallible. Yes, everyone makes mistakes. But this was a huge error that is difficult to explain, if it were just an innocent mistake. And Will presented his arguments with such bombastic certitude and arrogance while attacking anyone who dared to disagree with him. This is why exchanges between Will and other veteran apologists/scholars, like David Bokovoy, Don Bradley, Ed Goble, LifeonaPlate, kolipolki, etc. have been heated. Will doesn't tolerate disagreement, especially from other LDS believers.

The point is, if William Schryver's arguments were not trustworthy four years ago (an indisputable fact given the evidence) then why should anyone trust in anything he says today?

I asked you in the other thread if you would admit William was wrong in his description of the BoA manuscripts, and now I will ask you the same about his error mentioned in this thread. In my opinion these represent two clear examples of William's abject ignorance on this subject. I don't expect William to respond, because, well, he never does. But if you want to continue defending his credibility, then you need to at least explain why someone with so much credibility could misrepresent these source documents to the extent that he has.

Take a few days. I know these are tough questions, for a Schryver loyalist.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

As stated earlier, I am not interested in having a discussion based on Kevin's caricatures of someone else's arguments from days gone by. If he or anyone else in this thread wishes to present his/their own arguments in favor of his/their own on-topic position (in other words where he or they speak for themselves and let me and others speak for ourselves), then I will attempt to reply insofar as doing so will advance the discussion.

Otherwise, I am fine with leaving Kevin to shadow box alone with his imagined specters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

In other words, you refuse to answer the question after you promised you would. Your loyalty to William is really more important to you than your reputation (whatever that may be)?

It is OK wade. The Church can still be true, even after you admit you mentor Schryver was wrong and had no earthly clue what he was talking about.

Is this really too much to ask?

I mean if you cannot accept basic facts such as these, then yes, there is no point in trying to have a discussion because you just proved that you are not interested in what's true. You're only interested in what you can project as truth via rhetoric. And the fact is there is no salvation for William's argument. He was wrong. Period. And his error cannot be explained in any way that helps save his credibility. All the flowery rhetoric from you and Hamblin won't change this.

Otherwise, I am fine with leaving Kevin to shadow box alone with his imagined specters.

That's rich. Especially from a guy who is posting diatribes day and night while everyone else is enjoying the holidays. Do we really need to go through the dozens of threads you have started where no one else posts but you? It is almost as if you like to hear the sound of your own voice. For me, it helps enduring your incessant condescension by reading your posts in the voice of Homer Simpson.

Wade, I'm serious. I tried printing out a slew of your "responses" one night so I could read them through the day as I had time, but I ran out of paper after the 27th page. "Discussions" with you always end up being an exercise in futility but a great example of how exponential growth works. You wear your opponent down with sheer volume, so it doesn't really matter if you have no substance.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Just so you know, the only reason to beg this question is apologetic, for the documents themselves clearly indicate they are translation manuscripts. There is every indication of them being translation manuscripts. That's why the first page of MS 1 states at the top, "translation of the Book of Abraham." Mormon scholar James R. Clarke also agrees.

I don't wish to interact with Kevin, but I would like to let the interested reader know that James R. Clark's scholarship on the Book of Abraham dates to circa. 1955. As may be expected, scholarship on the Book of Abraham has advanced considerably since then (particularly in the last several years), even though the thinking of a certain party may have not.

Imagine, allowing the document to speak for itself. What craziness.

I am all for letting documents speak for themselves. What I object to is people reading things into document that aren't logically there. One can open a recent edition of the Book of Abraham and see the word "translated" in the subtitle and "translation" in the chapter heading, though sans characters in the left-hand margins.

Clearly, I (and other faithful LDS) view the Book of Abraham as a translation. Where I disagree with certain critics is whether the translation of that book of scripture was from the characters in the margin of Mss. #1. To assume that it is, as Pahoran noted, is to beg the question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund