Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Dr Moore]

Hey Philo, have faith brother. People can improve at a faster rate than organizations do.

Eventually the church will apologize for some things. It has to.

[_Philo Sofee]

Hey Philo, have faith brother. People can improve at a faster rate than organizations do.

Eventually the church will apologize for some things. It has to.

I hope you are right. But I know you are wrong. Dan and Lou cannot apologize for a very simple reason. They do not believe they lied and are in the wrong. Why apologize for something you didn't do? In their eyes, since they have the Gospel, they are immune from ever being wrong on any subject they choose to expound on. They have this very weird thinking going on and if they only realized just actually what it does show for their goodness, would make them absolutely cringe they were giving off that kind of image to the world that they are giving off. The church should cut its losses, boot both of them and move onto better people to represent them.

[_Shulem]

Dan Peterson constantly accuses others of demonizing him. That is an oft repeated saying on Dan's part. What's funny is it's true. People do demonize him because he is a demon. The man is mean spirited and evil. In my opinion, he's a demon. It's on his mind all the time. He is what he thinks. As a man thinketh so is he.

You are a demon, Dan. I got that figured, Dan-baby.

YOU are freaking evil.

[_Philo Sofee]

I don't see him and Lou as evil, so much as just foolishly arrogant beyond belief and misguided. At least these faults are curable, if they just had the faith....

[_Dr Moore]

You might be right. You’re probably right. The evidence thus far says you’re right.

Eh.

Sisyphean tasks are a daily thing for me at work ;)

[_Shulem]

I don't see him and Lou as evil, so much as just foolishly arrogant beyond belief and misguided. At least these faults are curable, if they just had the faith....

Then at least you'll agree that misguided people who are foolish and arrogant are more apt to be evil as opposed to those who are wise and humble.

Dan is always talking about how people demonize him. It's quite telling that he's actually describing his true nature. It's on his mind every single day. It's who he is.

[_cwald]

Eventually the church will apologize for some things. It has to.

No, they won't.

"I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," Dallin Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. "We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' but we look forward and not backward."

The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them."

[_Dr Moore]

Kiwi57 26 minutes ago
I know your invitation was addressed to Dan. But here's the thing: Dan didn't say that you were lying when you called Lou's article a "hit piece." That's a matter of opinion, and you are just as entitled to yours as anyone else is.
The issue of fact around that was that you claimed that Lou had admitted something which he had not admitted, but had explicitly denied. Now, without any bribery being mentioned, would you please revisit that assertion?
Reply View


Dr. Moore
Dr. Moore a few seconds ago
Dr. Peterson accused me in this comment thread of posting “baldfaced lies”.
It was a warning in response to my claim that the Prying paper itself identified a primary aim as a character assassination on Grant Palmer.
I provided a quote from the text that indicate quite clearly that this aim was top of mind. Later I provided two additional quotes indicating that such a “hit piece” (my words) was justified because Grant Palmer has likewise attacked Joseph Smith.
Further comments in this thread provided substantial evidence as to the methods, means and motivations for going after Mr. Palmer’s credibility. That the author of the Prying article held back the most damning evidence is moot, and serves only to buttress my original claim.
It was not a baldfaced lie, which I was accused of making. It was a legitimate reading of the article.
The golden pot discussion was interesting as well. It was well researched, upon reflection. But that isn’t the point here. The presence of a redeeming academic narrative in an article does not negate the hit piece narrative in the same article.
One of, and in my view primary, premise of the article was to thoroughly discredit Mr. Palmer. I have made that case honestly and was accused of lying for it. Decorum and civility demands an apology. That’s all I’m asking here.

[_Dr Moore]

cwald: totally. Not going to happen this year!

[_moksha]

My guess is that Dr. Midgley knew that trying to dig up dirt on Grant Palmer by interviewing his students, colleagues, church leaders, friends, and neighbors was an act of personal dynamiting rather than the earnest efforts of reviewing a book. He wanted dirt and damage. On some level, he knew that conventional morality would find his actions and motives abhorrent. Had he worked somewhere besides BYU where standards of ethics applied, he would have been sanctioned by his peers and employers for such methods. Thus it made sense that he would be so strongly defensive when this matter was mentioned.

So are you hinting that this look into Grant Palmer's book may have been a hit piece or a teaser for TV Guide?