Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

[_stemelbow]

You are not too far off Stem, while Daniel "Cambridge" Peterson has plenty of time clocked in with the old guard, he likes to pretend he is fully able to engage with what "Liberal" and Secular thinkers bring to the table. Whilst Dan pretends he is taking on “New Atheist” types, Blake Ostler relies on them to deal Evangelical critiques of Mormon Theology.

you go Blake. Why is it that when I hear Blake speak or read his pieces I feel such a burning in my bosom? Ah wait...But seriously I usually find his stuff enlightening. I hope you whoop Dan into shape (oh oops), if that's what you intend to do. If so maybe he'll be joining that new guard you all are hoping for.

What happens from here remains to be seen, but we may be seeing a major shift in Mopologetics. All we here at Cassius can do is wait, and document.

Well keep up the noble work. What doesn't kill us but does reform us makes us stronger (I hope someone makes a special note of my use of "us" as if I'm part of this esteemed crowd--I start crying just hoping). But when that happens You Cassius folks, I hope, won't lose your purpose. maybe you'llhave to move on to bigger and better things. Here's to hopin'.

[_Gadianton]

This new development is mind blowing. First of all, I thought most of the MI old guard had hung up the gloves and moved on to other things. That they had laid plans and marched onto the seminar together showS that the flame yet burns.

What I think would be fascinating is an account of the attendees, and their respective sitting positions. I think this could reveal a lot about the various cells that make up the mopologetic and MS landscape.

A big shout out to Reed though, it takes a lot of guts to stand and speak the truth amongst battle-hardened polemicists.

The mopologetic response that Quinn has been "seeding the junkyard" is also fascinating. The suggestion that one or two lone critics exercise an Orwellian command over the history of the world spaeaks volumes of the dangers to one's mental health passing through middle age as a Mopologist.

[_MrStakhanovite]

A big shout out to Reed though, it takes a lot of guts to stand and speak the truth amongst battle-hardened polemicists.

Brother can't present a paper without being harassed by cranks.

[_Themis]

People have long known that there were ancient records inscribed on metal plates. That part is nothing new. What is new is that, contrary to past apologetic arguments, people in Joseph Smith's day were also well aware of the existence of ancient writings on metal plates. That is not exactly a vindication of the traditional apologetic position.

K

It might be more accurate that people in Joseph's day believed in the existence of ancient records inscribed on metal plates. Evidence for this is rare, and never involved inscribing more then a sentence to maybe a paragraph of information. There are of course other anachronistic things like brass plates in 600BC Israel to contend with as well, especially if you want to have a good portion of the Old testament inscribed onto it. What some critics or apologists may have argued in the past was never much of an issue for me.

[_malkie]

And I wonder what's in store for Mike Reed after this? Can we expect a smear piece to appear in a future issue of the Review? Time will tell, I suppose.

Mostly what I think we can expect from the MI folks
is a whole lot of hand-waving and smoke-spewing that we
know is their specialty. I imagine any response from them will involve some complicated but
entertaining mental gymnastics that would make
Reason stare. I mean,
even if they had some kind of argument, we know they prefer to simply
evade the obvious and focus on tangential irrelevancies. It's the mopologetic way:
deflect, devalue, denounce, decry, and then, as they showed at the conference, disappear.
It's the same thing with every issue: the critics use reason, interpreting evidence from
scholarly sources and the mopologists mimic the tools of science to construct
apologetic "arguments," the purpose of which is to make unsuspecting
believers feel more comfortable about exercising faith in nonsense.
Under no circumstances would I expect the apologists to
take on the issues head on.
That would go completely against their standard m.o. No, they need to dazzle the
faithful with something that appears clever, even if upon a closer examination
all the flaws in their argument become apparent. For that reason, I think they will
consider trying to be "funny" in whatever they print in response to Mike. Something
eerily similar to this post, perhaps.

What a pity, Equality - with a little more effort you could have got "head" (;=)

[_Kishkumen]

It might be more accurate that people in Joseph's day believed in the existence of ancient records inscribed on metal plates.

Yeah, and?

Evidence for this is rare, and never involved inscribing more then a sentence to maybe a paragraph of information.

Yes, I know that.

What some critics or apologists may have argued in the past was never much of an issue for me.

Great news! Thanks for sharing.

[Guest]

Great news! Thanks for sharing.

No problem. :)

[_Doctor Scratch]

Who is this poster "ldsfaqs"? Is this a legitimately new person? It seems almost like a Mola Ram sockpuppet. Regardless, this individual is extremely hostile and borderline unhinged.

Also (lol!), I see that DCP tried to defuse the situation by claiming that Gee et al. had to "flee" the presentation in order to attend an MI-sponsored dinner:

Incidentally, although it's certainly likely -- they're craven "Mopologists," after all -- that Roper and Gee and others skulked out of the room in terror and utter defeat at the end of the Q&A session, their departure might also have had to do with a Maxwell-Institute-sponsored dinner that they were obliged to attend at a restaurant off campus.

Chris Smith responded by pointing out that M. Reed's presentation ended....at 3:15. That's one hell of an Early Bird!

[_Kishkumen]

Chris Smith responded by pointing out that M. Reed's presentation ended....at 3:15. That's one hell of an Early Bird!

I think the crow is served at 3:30.

[_Kishkumen]

The mopologetic response that Quinn has been "seeding the junkyard" is also fascinating. The suggestion that one or two lone critics exercise an Orwellian command over the history of the world spaeaks volumes of the dangers to one's mental health passing through middle age as a Mopologist.

I recently read a fascinating book about conspiracy theories, Among the Truthers. I found Jonathan Kay's observations about conspiracist seminars and discussion boards eerily familiar:

Conspiracy theorists typically appear self-confident and even smug when they're discussing their area of obsession. But in many cases, it's an act: Since their entire identity is based on a nest of riddles that will unravel if they allow themselves to step outside of their narrow conspiracist mindset, their emotional state is more fragile than they let on. When assembled in groups--either virtually, on the Internet, or in a real-life lecture hall--their group dynamics therefore tend to be brittle and cultish. "I simply asked logical questions that contradicted some of the conspiracy claims and demanded answers at the Loose Change Forum, [and] I got banned for that," reports one former quasi-Truther on a James Randi Educational Foundation discussion server. "[That] really annoyed me and I signed up again asking why they banned me for bringing up evidence against [a] fake Osama video, which got me banned again...."

That reminds me so much of old-school apologetics. Gee's antics today fit this mold perfectly.