Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Doctor Scratch]

This was the most significant thing that Midgley said in the vein of the most recent quotes above:

Is there anyone who really doubts that Paul Toscano, D. Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer, Seve Benson, Simon Southerton, George D. Smith, Thomas Murphy, Gina Colvin, or John Dehlin had not each made such a huge public stink about their own apostasy that they courted and even demanded facing Church discipline? No one had to turn them in, since they were dedicated to doing that themselves.

These were all people that the Mopologists have "targeted." And yet the Mopologists object to that characterization: they seem to think that they're blameless in all of this. Never mind the fact that it's not as if anyone was "forcing" them to pen multiple essays on Palmer, Quinn, and the others. If the people Midgley names were "dedicated to doing that themselves," then why was a Mopologetic response needed at all? This is really Midgley admitting what he actually thinks: i.e., "They got what they deserved!"

[_Dr Exiled]

They protest too much.

[_Philo Sofee]

Excellent points Dr. Scratch. Actually, if Jesus really, in truth, is running the show, why is any apologetic ever offered on any subject? It's all about pandering their egos for the congregations of followers. It's all about the apologists showing off. We are smarter than everyone else, therefore we are right because we have the truth. Only those with degrees like us ought to be allowed to write and defend, the rest of you just believe us. They have literally replaced the point of the prophets and apostles who are the ones who are supposed to be in the know with Jesus. Even Gee has now said ONLY those with degrees in Egyptology have any right to speak about the Book of Abraham. Well that throws out ALL of the brethren, beginning with Joseph Smith right up to today, July 12, 2020 now doesn't it............all hail the new Mormon gods, the degree holding professors and Mopologists!

[_Dr LOD]

Excellent points Dr. Scratch. Actually, if Jesus really, in truth, is running the show, why is any apologetic ever offered on any subject? It's all about pandering their egos for the congregations of followers. It's all about the apologists showing off. We are smarter than everyone else, therefore we are right because we have the truth. Only those with degrees like us ought to be allowed to write and defend, the rest of you just believe us. They have literally replaced the point of the prophets and apostles who are the ones who are supposed to be in the know with Jesus. Even Gee has now said ONLY those with degrees in Egyptology have any right to speak about the Book of Abraham. Well that throws out ALL of the brethren, beginning with Joseph Smith right up to today, July 12, 2020 now doesn't it............all hail the new Mormon gods, the degree holding professors and Mopologists!

"the philosophies of man mingled with scripture"

[_Lemmie]

This is why people shouldn’t give any additional in real life information to Louis Midgley. He has taken a single comment from Dr. Shades, added in his utterly predictable mendaciousness and come up with this grotesquerie:

Louis Midgley Dr. Shades an hour ago

I thought that Dr. Shades had an Epiphany some three years back when he thought that he had become a Deist, only to discover that he had not understood how to properly label his experience. Since he has, it seems, come to acknowledge that God cares for and may respond to the pleadings of those who genuinely trust him, he should not be asking if such an a desire for divine assistance "works." Faith in God is not a magical trick that one can use to fix things. I suggest that Dr. Shades should get a little booklet by N. T. Wright entitled God and the Pandemic: A Christian Reflection on the Coronavirus and its Aftermath (Zondervan, 2020). This is only 76 pages and hence it is not like I was suggesting that he build on whatever it was that he cannot find the words to describe how he changed his mind about God on 9 March 1997.

http://disq.us/p/2aiha0z

So making a mockery of others’ spiritual experiences is only wrong when others do it? Is that Midgley’s excuse?

No wonder so many people warned Gina Colvin about Midgley.

[_Philo Sofee]

In Midgets mind there is no other spirituality than his and his fellow Mormons. No one can have such except the Ph.d's........ there will always be something wrong with anyone else's experiences except the Mormon ones. Those are the actual only true ones in their minds.

[_Temp. Admin.]

(Dr. Shades here, using our "Temp. Admin." account.)

So making a mockery of others’ spiritual experiences is only wrong when others do it? Is that Midgley’s excuse?

Yes, it is.

In Midgets mind there is no other spirituality than his and his fellow Mormons. No one can have such except the Ph.d's........ there will always be something wrong with anyone else's experiences except the Mormon ones. Those are the actual only true ones in their minds.

That is oh so incredibly true.

On an unrelated note, what was Midgley like on the L-Skinny list?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Professor Peterson's comments about the passion for the "allegorical interpretation to the scriptures" reminded me of the flush of current efforts to read the Book of Mormon in this way--that is, to read it as merely "inspired fiction." And hence not as an authentic ancient history. Those who do this follow directly in the very tradition that Professor Peterson has correctly described as apostasy.

The reason is that they are either knowingly/intentionally doing this because they want a different and less demanding "religious" community, or they just stumble into doing this because it is a current fad or fashion. Either way, they end up denying that their can be continuing divine relations to both to themselves and hence also the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. What they deny to the Brethren, they also deny to themselves.

[_Philo Sofee]

Lou Midgley
The reason is that they are either knowingly/intentionally doing this because they want a different and less demanding "religious" community, or they just stumble into doing this because it is a current fad or fashion.

Such sophomoric BYU thinking is off the mark. It is neither to me. Is it too hard to ask for a religion that is based on evidenced reality? I could care less on how demanding a religion is. That s irrelevant, hence Lou's argument is flawed.

[_Dr Moore]

Hmm, so without the Book of Mormon being a literal historical record, the brethren have no authority. Good summary, Prof Midgley.