Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Gadianton]

Huh. I have yet to see an accusation that Midgley lied about his graduate studies. If someone could point me to such a claim, I'd be interested.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Huh. I have yet to see an accusation that Midgley lied about his graduate studies. If someone could point me to such a claim, I'd be interested.

I dunno--this one, for me, is a bit of a tough call. The criticism has to do with some of Midgley's typical boasting. As you and others probably recall, Midgley has boasted on more than one occasion that some of his grad school requirements were "waived" because the Powers That Be at his university (Brown, right?) were "so impressed" with his LDS mission experiences that they told him that he didn't have to bother with certain normal curricular requirements. Now, I would be the first one to say that this certainly sounds like a tall tale. Midgley is no spring chicken and his grad school experience probably dates back to well before a whole lot of discrimination and diversity-related law, but to give special advantages to somebody because of their religious denomination and experiences.... Well, that doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? But it sure shows how much the Ivy League respects Mormons and the things they do! If Muslim students have completed a pilgrimage to Mecca, do they get requirements waived, too?

The story has always felt like an exaggeration, or like a classic instance of Mopologetics: where something is inflated or made up in order to bolster the Church's reputation. So, is Midgley "lying" about his "graduate studies"? I honestly don't know. But I do think that story he's repeatedly told sounds awfully suspect.

[_Gadianton]

You are correct about that story being told, Professor. I spoke about this very thing on Gina Colvin's blog, and I have to wonder if *that* is where the accusation is coming from. But as I've always said, my memory isn't the greatest and I don't read every thread, and so I don't want to accuse anyone of lying if there is another possible source out there.

I'll admit that I'm partial to believing Mr. Midgley told the truth in this instance. Don't ask me why a respectable school would do such a thing, but I have little doubt that universities aren't fully immune from corruption. I hate to use Lemmie as an example, but suppose Lemmie were to tell me that her college was so great, because she got some grad credits covered for the time she spent working in the Casinos and seeing stats work in real life. Wouldn't that be weird? I mean, it directly calls into question the actual course material that wasn't completed, that others are required to complete, but that kind of favoritism raises questions about how seriously the final dissertation was scrutinized.

You know, with all the bluster about "fake doctors" these kinds of stories don't seem to be the kind of stories a person taking the moral high ground for their own academic accomplishments should be bragging about.

[_moksha]

Do braggadocio-type stories accompany those people who like to be bullies?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Louis is still whining about his rule-violating behavior being documented, along with his BS stories, stolen valor, and dubious academic claims/accomplishments:

“Did not Fred Kratz seem certain that I routinely engage in what he called "personal attacks and name calling within the comments" that I "make in this venue"--that is, sic et non>? Should Fred Kratz not have had the evidence right there at his fingertips ready to post that would prove that I am a bloody monster? And that I constantly violate Patheos rules about comments?

Fred Kratz can't cite the rubbish fabricated on the Shady board about my many terrible crimes, since "this venue" is right here on Dan's blog where he said that I routinely engage in "personal attacks and name calling."

I have read the rules that Patheos sets out. And I have much enjoyed pointing out that those from [i removed in real life information here- Doc] dismal Dr. Shades board violated those posting rules when they fired away at me on the Patheos blog by Kiwi Mormon. Oh the delicious irony.

Finally there are simply no "specific guidelines" set out by the Brethren that prevent a vigorous response to the kind of rubbish that Fred Kratz and other sworn enemies of the faith of Latter-day Saints publish or vent on blogs and boards.“

You’ll note he’s constantly doxxing Dr. Shades.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

From an earlier post:

Louis Midgley

...that the particular message buried in that acrostic was tasteless and inappropriate. I also wish to apologize for whatever real... offense... this might have been to Brent.

All of those involved with the old FARMS and now the Maxwell Institute, of course, deeply regret any emotional strain this put upon Brent by that acrostic...

http://shields-research.org/WP/?p=38

How nice. Of course, the above Is rendered meaningless by what he says now:

Louis Midgley:

This has forced those determined to claim that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon to insist that the very complicated instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are merely accidents.

Put bluntly, and for the amusement of some Latter-day Saints, only a Butthead would make this claim.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4911200509

“For the amusement of some LDS”? Wow.

[_moksha]

Finally there are simply no "specific guidelines" set out by the Brethren that prevent a vigorous response to the kind of rubbish that Fred Kratz and other sworn enemies of the faith of Latter-day Saints publish or vent on blogs and boards.“

Don't think those things which are of virtue and good report can be found in Midgley's blog comments.

[_Lemmie]

Louis Midgley Louis Midgley • 2 days ago

Please notice that Charles has gone dark. It seems that it has never entered his head that having a fullness does not entail others having much that can be appreciated and deserves praise.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4914456176

I’m trying to understand this as charitably as possible, but is this Mormon really suggesting that if his religion is a “fullness,” then by definition no one else has much ”that can be appreciated and deserves praise”?

What do you even say to such a misanthrope? The damage he continues to wreak on the reputation of his religion is extreme.

[_Gadianton]

That's exactly what he's saying, although I would give him the benefit of the doubt as meaning "having a fullness does not preclude others having much that can be appreciated..." I'll give DCP 24 hours to inform Midgley so that he can correct his mistake if indeed it was a mistake.

The apologists are in a bind. They fight secularism more often than anything else lately, and to fight secularism they can't exactly say what they really believe, that other churches are filled with a bunch of nonsense. Remember Joseph Smith making fun of the Trinity: that's a big jolly God! LOL!

But if the restored gospel doesn't make a material difference, then what's the point of being Mormon? Why follow Rusty the Tin Man and his hundred billion disciples? Slightly better window dressing for their heavenly mansions? Not of Rusty has to foot the bill!

Gemli put them in this fork in a brilliant move that had no response except for a downvote by Kiwi57 at the time. I can't remember the thread. I've been really busy. Gemli asked what they would rather him do, go back to believing what he was taught as a Catholic as a youth, that God is going to send everyone except Catholics to hell, or believe as he believes now?

There weren't any responses at the time, but the obvious move for Mr. M and anyone who dares to respond with more than an easy downvote, is to tell Gemli that he misunderstood Catholic teachings as a youth or is lying about them. Essentially, they have to do now to Gemli what Mr. Migdley has already done with the Maori, and tell him what his ancestors believed because they apparently, didn't know.

[_Physics Guy]

Louis Midgley Louis Midgley • 2 days ago
It seems that it has never entered his head that having a fullness does not entail others having much that can be appreciated and deserves praise.

This might just be one of Midgley's glitched sentences. Maybe he intended an awkward double negative, "does not entail others NOT having much" and forgot the second "not". Or maybe he meant "preclude" instead of "entail".