Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Dr Moore]

You nasty cesspool denizens might not want to change. But I guess you can all sleep peacefully knowing that neither will "they."

What the hell?!?

LOL. Sarcasm Lemmie! You know I love every one of you just as you are.

[_Philo Sofee]

That's how I took it Dr. Moore, no worries, it's all good.

[_Lemmie]

That's how I took it Dr. Moore, no worries, it's all good.

I kind of like hanging out with my "nasty cesspool denizens," philo. Far less boring than the alternative!

[_Shulem]

That's how I took it Dr. Moore, no worries, it's all good.

I kind of like hanging out with my "nasty cesspool denizens," philo. Far less boring than the alternative!

Don't forget me too. I'm the nastiest and poopiest denizen in the whole cesspool.

I'm the worst one here.





PS: Daniel C Peterson is so FAT he should be paying for two seats every time he flies. He damn sure better not sit next to me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

"By your own admission" is not a completely clear issue. If Midgley admitted to having done things that amounted to writing a hit piece then it would be reasonable to say that he had admitted to writing a hit piece even if he never said so explicitly in so many words. "I shot the sheriff" is an admission of attempted murder even though it doesn't say, "I attempted murder."

So I don't think Dr Moore has any need to acknowledge his "by your own admission" as objectively false. Whether Midgley's descriptions of his own actions were tantamount to admission to writing a hit piece or not is a judgement call upon which people can honestly differ.

This is a good point. It reminds me of the case where "Not one dime of my salary comes from apologetics" actually means, "I *do* get payment for apologetics, but it doesn't come via the same channels as my normal salary."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Louis Midgley > baxter999 • 5 hours ago

Baxter:

You should be awed by the Book of Mormon has more than a little suspicious of its critics. Hauglid joins Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf and Chris Smith. And Robin Jensen boasts that he does not know or care where Hauglid got his ideas. And who he has now joined. Amazing.

I hope that you were at the FM conference and heard and witnessed the amazing presentation by Brian Hales on the alternative explanations of the Book of Mormon. It was a game changer. Dan even quoted me as saying this in his blog message at that conference. Brian explained to me earlier what he would be doing in his presentation. He had read my essay entitled "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon," in that still very valuable book edited by Noel Reynolds. I tried to distinguish the different and also radically inconsistent attempts to explain how we have the Book of Mormon. And then show how the contradict each other, and none of them can account for all that is known about the recovery and contents of the Book of Mormon except one. Brian has gone much further than I did.

Man, what a garbled pastiche of words and sentences. I have no idea how Mr. Peterson continues to allow The Midge to make a fool of himself on SeN.

Anyway. So I looked for this 'game changer' titled, "Supernatural or Supernormal? Scrutinizing Secular Sources for the Book of Mormon" and couldn't find a transcript. I did see someone mentioning it's a presentation that's been given a handful of times before, but I'm unable to find anything.

If it's a game changer why isn't the transcript available on FairMoron?

So. I punt to you fine folks. Can you find a link or transcript?

- Doc

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Cam,

It's hard to follow such rambling, but am I'm I right in reading that Lou Midgley is once again taking credit for something epic?

Tell me where I misstep:

- At the Fair Mormon conference, Brian Hales gave a presentation on alternative explanations of the Book of Mormon.
- DCP, at the conference, announced that Hale's work was a "game changer".
- As it turns out, Midgley is the one who called the work a "game changer", at SeN, and DCP was quoting him.
- But, in a plot twist, it turns out that Brian Hales had read Lou Midgley's essay from some FARMs book a long time ago.
- Brian Hales developed those essential ideas that were Midgley's all along.

In other words, Midgley has just announced that his own work is a "game changer".

Folks, as a Stake President of mine once said, "you just can't make this stuff up."

[_Dr Moore]

Have not seen the text or video.

From the title it appears to be a refutation of certain secular theories for the origin of the Book of Mormon. By “game changer” are we to assume Hales has uncovered new evidence which proves these theories false? In other words, he proves a negative?

If so that would be newsworthy. Endeavors to prove a negative usually fall well short of changing any games. Such as proving no God, no aliens, or that BYU is incapable of winning a national football championship again.

To be balanced in fairness, for that matter, however much someone may believe Joseph made it all up, it is a high bar indeed to prove that he didn’t see God in the grove, see real words in the seer stone, or acquiesce to the visitation of an angel with a drawn sword.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... see real words in the seer stone...

If only the spell checker wasn't glitching for those 90 days...

- Doc

[_Philo Sofee]

But, in a plot twist, it turns out that Brian Hales had read Lou Midgley's essay from some FARMs book a long time ago.
- Brian Hales developed those essential ideas that were Midgley's all along.

In other words, Midgley has just announced that his own work is a "game changer".

I can't help but ask in all sincerity, a game changer for who? Were a paper like this to be a game changer, the evidence to be able to raise it so high aloft would be demonstrated by Brent Lee Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, Paul Osborne, Kevin Graham, and Kerry Shirts to see it so obvious that we all jump back into activity in the church and begin to bear testimony it is true after all. If that kind of evidence was in existence, then it can be legitimately be called a game changer. If the entire faculty of the University of Chicago were to hold a symposium and read the paper, and the entire faculty converted to Mormonism due to this game changing thing, then it could be raised so high aloft as to be called a legitimate game changer. If 100,100,100 people read this and came to recognize it as the legitimate truth, that would raise this to a game changer. But if it just helps already confirm biases held by apologists? Not so much.

Instead of Lou Midgley crowing how great Lou Midgley is, it would be a much more profound credibility if Robert Ritner read it and converted and called it "a game changer."