Louis Midgley gemli a day ago
How would gemli know? He boasts of not knowing a thing about any manifestation of Christian faith, including even that version he was indoctrinated with by nice Nuns at the school his parents sent him to tame his wigglies and avoided other much less savory public education in New Orleans.
Louis Midgley gemli a day ago
And gemli is also able to dress himself, and shower when necessary, as he posts his atheist dogmatic religion. But gemli has never managed to do any actual science. ....
Lemmie wrote:If midgley is mentally impaired, why doesn’t Peterson reach out to his daughter or someone for help?
Res Ipsa wrote:Someone should really start a blog called “____ Lou Says.”
Perhaps he has.
Gadianton wrote:Res Ipsa wrote:Someone should really start a blog called “____ Lou Says.”
Someone has, it's called Sic et Non.
I'm pretty sure 90% of the traffic bypass the OP and head straight for the comments to see what Mr. Lou says next.
Someone has, it's called Sic et Non. I'm pretty sure 90% of the traffic bypass the OP and head straight for the comments to see what Mr. Lou says next.
Anderson wrote:30 September 1981. Louis C. Midgley of BYU's political science department attacks the New Mormon History and historians for a lack of faith. Joined periodically by David Earle Bohn and Gary Novak, he continues his vigorous critique of "objective" history to the present. (Footnote #23)
(Footnote #23). See, as examples, "The Mormon (His)story," (letter to the editor), Sunstone, Feb. 1992 [mailed in Aug. 1992], 9; and "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 189-226, first published as "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in By Study and by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, eds. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book/FARMS, 1990), 2:502-51. The Smith volume includes "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History" (227-63), a revised and expanded revision of "No Higher Ground," Sunstone 8 (May-June 1983): 26-32, "The Burden of Proof," Sunstone 10 (June 1985): 2-3, and "Our Own Agenda," Sunstone 14 (June 1990): 45-49.
Sunstone May 2004 wrote:Midgley was forcibly escorted from Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s bookstore after he confronted them there, and he recently attended a book signing to publicly challenge Grant Palmer, a retired institute director who has questioned traditional LDS faith claims.
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/issues/132.pdf
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
...
What "theory" is necessary? VB, of all people, has (however unwittingly) provided the facts which relieve Governor Leavitt, at least, from the need to be subjected to your incurably hostile mind-reading.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
No. They do not.
All they really do is project the worst thoughts of their own minds onto those whom they are determined to despise.
Dr. Shades > Kiwi57
Sort of like how you operate?
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
So (1) you don't care what accusation you run with? You're just (2)tossing up which one is the most spiteful, and then you'll pick that?
Got it.
In the meantime, please support the bolded accusation, above.
(Prediction: since you can't - and (3)you know you can't - you'll try to fob me off with a "witty" quip. Which will only get about 50% of the way there.)
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Did (4)you really think I would fall for such a shady attempt at misdirection?
(5)As you know, that doesn't support the accusation I asked you to support, which was that Governor Leavitt was acting "to protect the church's official narrative, 'cause the preliminary forensic evidence proved the church's story to be false."
(6)You wouldn't know this - and indeed, I never expected you to - but all non-bigots realise that the truth of "the Church's official narrative" does not rest upon the fine details of which victim was killed by what method.
The question before you is to support your speculative reconstruction of Governor Leavitt's motive. You failed, of course.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Yes, and like all non-bigots I knew that you were talking about the MMM.
I also knew that, like most non-non-bigots, (7)you were not the slightest bit interested in what actually happened, but (8)were only looking to find a reason to accuse the Church of something.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Your (9)uncritical acceptance of a narrative that supports your prejudices is noted.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Wrong question. Here's the right one: Why did two SLTrib reporters claim, without support, that there was "steady pressure for secrecy" when they knew that claim would reflect badly upon the Church of Jesus Christ?
You see Shades, the question pretty much answers itself, doesn't it?
The fact is that there was steady pressure from the descendants to reinter the remains. The reporters chose to spin that as "steady pressure for secrecy" because it fit a certain ideological view.
Which, as everyone knows, (10)you share.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
1. What law was rewritten?
2. Thank you for demonstrating how instinctively you turn to demagoguery and race-baiting (11)to distract from the discussion at hand.
How hard would it be to (12)admit that there is no support for your assumptions of nefarious motives on the part of Mr Leavitt?
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Shades: What is my "preferred narrative?"
(13)The "Mormonism done it" narrative, of course.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
Also highly reprehensible is the practice, (14)enjoyed by some, of cynically and opportunistically exploiting such events (15)for cheap polemical point-scoring.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Shades
No.
Nor, (16)as you perfectly well know, is it "apologetics for" the MMM.
But (17)you'll try to pretend that it is, of course.
It's what you do.
Kiwi57 > Dr. Detroit
Yes, Lee wrote a "confession" - mostly of other people's sins - which he delivered to his attorney, William Bishop.
Bishop was to recoup his legal fees by taking ownership of the manuscript and publishing it. Before doing so, he reports that Lee told him to "fix it up" for publication. Since Lee - who was quite literate and proud of his penmanship - had nevertheless chosen to dictate it. Why? Again, we'll never know, but it's much easier to tamper with a document that is not autographic than with one that is. (Note that Lee's scribe is not named.)
Furthermore, a document's use as a "dying declaration" only works if it is given under two conditions: (1) the writer accepts the fact of his imminent death, and (2) we have it in its pristine form, as it came from his pen (or fell from his lips.) The original manuscript is, most inconveniently, no longer available. I doubt that you would like it quite as much if it was. Moreover, it is not at all clear that Lee had resigned himself to his fate when he composed it. He explained that he wrote it, being "forced to resort to the first law of nature, self-protection." In other words, he still hoped to get let off the hook, so he had a clear motive to try to blame others. And of course, he knew perfectly well that certain parties would love to pin the blame upon Brigham. So who better?
The statement, "I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders," so heavily relied upon by you, is simply false.
No such orders were given.
I know (18)you wish they were, but they were not.
Sorry.
Kiwi57 > Billy Shears
>> But doing that would be dismissed as exploiting what happened for ideological reasons.
Only if that's what you are doing.
Which is clearly what happens when someone ignores what was actually going on in Cedar City in the period leading up to the massacre, and instead tries to find some way to pin it on Brigham Young. (Yes, (19)I know exactly who you were thinking of when you said "hierarchy.")
it won't work. Brigham didn't do it.