Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, it looks like Brent called Will''s bluff. Over in pundits at MAD he accepted Will's challenge to a public debate. Here is what Brent said:

=======

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...

[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...

[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>
========================

Everyone place your bets!

I'm betting Will is s***ing himself right now. But either way this can't be good. If he shows up, he gets creamed. If he doesn't, well, that would be even worse for Will and his pet theory.

[_beastie]

It will be interesting to see if Will can defend his theory. He certainly wasn't able to do so in Chris's thoughtful thread, and instead just personally attacked Chris. I would think even Will's fans would be embarrassed by such a performance, but since that's also the method of fans like Nomad, as well, perhaps it won't disturb them.

[_Kevin Graham]

Wilbur responds accordingly:

===============================

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
=========================

Wilbur is so full of crap. He is trying to raise the stakes so high as to make Brent disinterested again. Why in the bloody hell MUST Brent publish something in a journal, in a "short period of time"(!) before Will is willing to debate him? Because Will doesn't want to be blindsided. He wants to know exactly what it is Brent will be arguing. WIll was the one taunting Brent and now he is refusing to debate unless he can make all these ridiculous stipulations. Three hour debate that needs only an hour? A friggin legal contract? Brent has to be puiblished in a "short" time? How short is short?

What a wuss.

If he were half as confident in his positions as he has been deceiving his followers into believe he is, he should have no problem debating Metcalfe in a podcast or online even. And there is nothing "rinky dink" about podcast debates and it is certainly a step up from these online debates that Will obviously has no problem doing. This is just another lame Schryver excuse. He acts like he is a 19 year-old Mike Tyson refusing to fight anywhere but Madison Square Gardens with the biggest contract (again, this is all about Will's ego wanting the brightest spotlight, nothing more), when in reality he is just bluffing again. He doesn't want this debate. AT ALL.

[_truth dancer]

Well, I suppose this is Will's only out.

I mean he surely can't debate Brent and come out standing up, and he doesn't want to decline the "invitation," and look foolish, so what else can he do but come up with ridiculous requirements so outrageous that no one in their right mind would agree to it?

Would we expect anything else?

;-)

Oh well, it will be nice to listen to Brent's podcast!

~td~

[_Paul Osborne]

AS A SIDE NOTE --

Now is the time to keep the pressure up on the apologists and not lose sight that the Book of Abraham controversy is a painful thorn in their side. Isn't that right, Kevin? I think it was the Book of Abraham problems that finally knocked our dear Kevin off his apologetic horses' ass. (That's payback for calling me the board ass)

I know you all hate it it when I keep bringing up Facsimile No. 3, but I really feel that those points are serious death blows to the credibility of Joseph Smith. The church leaders are no doubt concerned about how this makes the church look.

Seriously though, can anyone here imagine a conference talk extolling the truthfullness of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3? I've yet to ever hear a General Authority say he knows those things are true. William Schryver knows they are not true and certainly wouldn't be surprised if the church removes them from his scriptures and leave them buried in the Times & Seasons. The church likes to bury things in the past or lock them up in the vault.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Now, as the thread topic goes, I think William is scared to death of Metcalfe, and rightfully so. Schryver would be hacked to pieces by Metcalfe and he knows it. Schryver doesn't want to have to answer direct questions in a conversational debate. I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to either if I was in his shoes. But duty calls.

William Schryver is a pussy.

Paul O

[_Trevor]

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:

OMG!!! He totally chickened out. Get this, people of much greater academic stature than Will have appeared on John Larsen's podcast, and Will acts as though he is too good to do so. He's full of crap. He totally chickened out. What a disappointment.

[_Nomad]

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:

OMG!!! He totally chickened out. Get this, people of much greater academic stature than Will have appeared on John Larsen's podcast, and Will acts as though he is too good to do so. He's full of crap. He totally chickened out. What a disappointment.

How hilarious!

Metcalfe bets a wrinkled ten dollar bill, which Schryver then sees and raises to a thousand dollars--and then is characterized as "chickening out."

Only in the Mormon Discussions Wonderland can such things occur.

lol!

[_Kevin Graham]

I know. And get this. Will says it is because the debate topic is of such tremendous importance that it needs a more prestigious venue (nevermind the fact that a podcast would be heard by a much wider audience than a closed room session somewhere in Utah).

And yet just prior to his presentation he admitted that this argument wasn't really that significant at all because it doesn't address any of the critical arguments against Smith's ability to translate ancient documents. I mean really, even if what Will argued is true, it still doesn't change much as far as the toughest Book of Abraham criticisms go. Joseph Smith still proved he could not translate Egyptian, and we still know that it derived from a breathings text that has nothing to do with Abraham.

Now he acts as though the pinnacle of Book of Abraham apologetics rests on the question of whether or not the KEP came before or after the original translation?

Seriously??

I can't stop laughing at all of this. Will we already knew was an intellectual fraud and now we know he is a coward. He taunts Brent, and Brent called his bluff. Now Will is trying to quit while he's ahead, refusing to address valid criticisms of his theory online (already saying his time in Mormon Studies is near an end) and now trying to "stipulate" his way out of a very embarrassing exchange with the guy who has mopped the floors with him on the forums for years.

[_Kevin Graham]

Nomad, you're worshipping a walking vagina.

Get over it.

Metcalfe bets a wrinkled ten dollar bill, which Schryver then sees and raises to a thousand dollars--and then is characterized as "chickening out."

No, Will has been throwing down these taunts and challenges for years, and he never expected Brent to agree to one. He said he'd agree to a debate in "a heartbeat" and now suddenly a heartbeat has become long drawn out list of stipulations about whether a debate can or should occur.

Will is a coward, period. He has proven this for years. I have refuted so many of his dumb comments on this forum it is hard to even keep track of them anymore, and everytime I challenge him to explain how he could get so many points incorrect and not be flat out lying, he flees the scene every time. WIll never had any intention of debating Brent. The "demands" he places on him before agreeing to one now are unprecedented in the history of debate. It is a joke that only moron like yourself could interpret as some kind of noble effort to "raise the stakes" to a higher level.

An intense debate covering the relevant issues can be handled in podcast just as well as in person. And Brent lives in Washington State. I don't suppose Will would be willing to travel that far to debate would he? No, of course not. Not enough Mormons there to cheer him on.

Again, this is all about Will's ego, and nothing more.