Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Philo Sofee]

So far all I have seen are two additional accusations of lying by dear Mr Kiwi.

Well. We shall see.

KIWI57 needs to start paying attention to what BYU professors are teaching about seer stones and hats in Joseph Smith's day and when supposedly the church actually ever found out about them to find the real liars. I predict he won't do it. He's not after truth, he's after image.

[_Dr Moore]

30+ years at that game of putting supposed enemies in their place.

[_Dr LOD]

30+ years at that game of putting supposed enemies in their place.

Has KIWIFRUIT really been a apologist that long? I’m kind of shocked, his comments on SEN had me thinking he was quite the amateur. And was more concerned with being a sycophant to an actual Mopologist.

[_Dr Moore]

He posted his real name several years back. You can find multiple FARMS articles he wrote addressing so-called Anti Mormon books of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

His activity on blogs and boards since at least the early 2000s is very consistent: daily attacks, sarcasm, and anger laden responses to anyone and everyone. It’s hard to understand how someone could harbor such acute bitterness for so long, toward so many people, or to sustain the same high level of engagement in contentious belittling.

But he has done it. And he’s managed to do it while claiming to follow Jesus and love his fellow men. It’s not how I hope to spend the next 30 years expressing love.

For someone who takes so many opportunities to call out this board as a hate site, so far the most hate I have seen here or at SeN comes from one person: Kiwi57.

Like I said. Dang.

[_Philo Sofee]

30+ years at that game of putting supposed enemies in their place.

And Jesus smiling down upon him all the while nudging the Holy Spirit to go on, go ahead and warm his loving little bosom while he does my work, so I don't have to...

[_Dr Moore]

Three days now with less than crickets response to my $1,000 apology offer. The only mention has been Kiwi doubling down with two fresh accusations of liar-liar. I can only guess that Dr Peterson and Dr Midgley have no intention of dignifying the hard money dare to apologize one time to someone, an active member no less, who they perceive as an enemy.

Sad face.

I would be happy to put the money in escrow and have the trigger pulled by an independent party. But I am beginning to see that their collective dismissal of such a potentially good cause isn’t about the money.

This unwillingness to offer even a single unqualified apology as a token of reconciliation - for a very clear and public example of being in the wrong - is simply astonishing.

It signals a belief that, when endeavoring to defend the faith, nothing they do is wrong if it is done to a perceived enemy.

Open ended questions:

1. What (or who) gives a person, any person, such license?

2. What is the end goal thereof?

3. What does history teach happens when an organization or group of people acts with such a persistent belief in their impunity, justified by holding moral high ground? Case studies?

4. Do the LDS scriptures have anything to say on this matter?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Boy, if Dr. Moore could get any ONE of those jackasses to admit wrongdoing, apologize, and accept his offer it would be... I can't even begin to describe how amazing it'd be. Unfortunately, our new friend has set himself upon a Sisyphean task and will find nothing but disappointment when this particular rock rolls back down the hill.

- Doc

[_Gadianton]

It signals a belief that, when endeavoring to defend the faith, nothing they do is wrong if it is done to a perceived enemy.

Believe it or not, Dr. Moore, it goes beyond even that. It's not merely being permitted to cross lines, it's being encouraged to cross lines. And here's why. Loyalty is easy when you have righteousness on your side. Are you loyal because you're loyal, or because the cause is just? The real test of loyalty comes when the cause is plainly not just. The sergeant who helps you cover up the evidence, or takes the fall for you, or up-votes your denial that the sky is blue -- "these are those whom I shall make my rulers".

[Guest]

But it's not going to happen, because it's going to backfire in ways you might not have anticipated.

It can’t backfire. Last week both Dan and Louis provided, in their rage, all of the evidence in the world that the article was principally a hit piece. There are pages and pages of documentary proof of the motivations and methods. It is incontrovertible.

And both of them called me a liar for my assessment that it was a “counterproductive and harmful” piece of writing, a.k.a. hit piece.

So they are provably and publicly in the wrong for making that accusation. Each of the supplied the proof.

One of two things will happen next:

1. One or both will choose to right the wrong, by apologizing publicly. In which case they will be better people, we will have formed a bridge toward healthier discussions, and a good charity will also win.

2. They will ignore the invitation to apologize. By so doing they will prove the critics - who label them dishonest - to be correct. Sadly this means that while the hypocrisy of a handful of leading Mormon apologists will become more evident, the truth comes out a little more. And we are all interested in truth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Three days now with less than crickets response to my $1,000 apology offer. The only mention has been Kiwi doubling down with two fresh accusations of liar-liar. I can only guess that Dr Peterson and Dr Midgley have no intention of dignifying the hard money dare to apologize one time to someone, an active member no less, who they perceive as an enemy.

Sad face.

I would be happy to put the money in escrow and have the trigger pulled by an independent party. But I am beginning to see that their collective dismissal of such a potentially good cause isn’t about the money.

This unwillingness to offer even a single unqualified apology as a token of reconciliation - for a very clear and public example of being in the wrong - is simply astonishing.

It signals a belief that, when endeavoring to defend the faith, nothing they do is wrong if it is done to a perceived enemy.

Open ended questions:

1. What (or who) gives a person, any person, such license?

2. What is the end goal thereof?

3. What does history teach happens when an organization or group of people acts with such a persistent belief in their impunity, justified by holding moral high ground? Case studies?

4. Do the LDS scriptures have anything to say on this matter?

Dr. Moore:

I strongly encourage you to post your offer on "Sic et Non" itself. I think it's important that you get a response from them, even if the answer is in the negative. It would be useful for the commenters on the blog to see that the offer has been made, and to see the Mopologists' response. If you are only posting it *here,* then it's all too easy for them to dismiss it as more "vile lies" emanating from the "cess pool."

I'd like to make a prediction, though. If you do post it--and you most certainly *should*--I predict that you really will get banned again, and that your comment will be censored. Still, that response in and of itself is better than "crickets." And who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and Mopologetic history will be made. But my guess is that they are going to accuse you of ulterior motives and that they'll ban you and engage in censorship.