Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

[_Philo Sofee]

Midgley in the comments also talks about Maori lore of not only seer stones but stones that chanted at people... Traditionally there were two of them, and they had names--hukatai and rehutai. They did not see words, but heard messages chanted to them so they could memorize them, or they say people or places and so forth.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

So we have rocks that teach English with all its syntax and nuances from a foreign language, and other traditions of talking rocks. The stuff that religion is made to rest upon is astounding. Can anyone at all find a way to test this? It is even more astounding that this is used to legitimize religious ideas and texts in our day. That is just breath taking! And actual grown and mature men with "real" Ph.ds believe this?!

[_moksha]

Baby steps. You know what though, worth it. I feel like Kiwi57 and I could be friends. He's a tough nut for sure. One smart cookie.

I remember talking with Pahoran on another board and found him amiable. Once he is able to step outside his Captain Moroni Combat Armor and breath in this planet's atmosphere he becomes much more human.

[_Physics Guy]

Pinning down exactly how the Book of Mormon got written is like pinning down exactly how an early illusionist vanished a lady on stage, in a small town in 1830, based on a combination of newspaper accounts and the performer's own advertising, without being sure which of those sources is which. And then if historians of magic do construct a likely theory, someone who believes in real magic makes objections like, "Whoa, how many people would just happen to be carrying around a tall, narrow curtain that would exactly fit this particular lady and also exactly match the backdrop curtain in this particular hall? Totally implausible explanation!"

Whether their deceptions are for crime or entertainment, deceivers go out of their way to prepare things that no-one expects. That's how deception succeeds. The trick relies on something that would ordinarily be so unlikely that it doesn't even occur to anyone to consider it. Trickery thrives because many such unlikely things are not actually hard to arrange if one sets out on purpose to do them. And then professional deceivers work further to conceal their methods and cover their tracks.

Of course that makes it quite unfair to ascribe the Book of Mormon to fraud. A hypothesis which assumes deliberate deception is inherently hard to disprove. Normal standards of plausibility don't apply any more, because most people don't carry around special curtains—but illusionists do. This gives Mormon apologists a horribly unfair uphill fight.

Apologists are stuck with an unfair uphill fight because they're defending an obvious fraud. So tough cookies for them.

[_Dr Moore]

Apologists are stuck with an unfair uphill fight because they're defending an obvious fraud. So tough cookies for them.

Well it’s not an obvious fraud to everyone.

That’s cool though. How boring would that be?

I can respect the honest testimony of any Mormon member. Just because their experience isn’t my own doesn’t make it less real for them.

What grinds my gears is when apologists wave their academic credentials around but clearly violate standards of good, honest scholarship.

When they selectively bend evidence to the left or right, in order to fit a predefined conclusion.

When the theories require contradicting mental gymnastics to barely qualify for a draw.

When they misapply scientific methodologies, don’t peer review with qualified non LDS scholars, and then present faith promoting results with the appearance of good science.

That is the obvious fraud.

That is why non LDS academics do not take Mormon apologist-scholars seriously. That is why there are such vocal critics. That is why some apologists, seeing the duplicity, quit and turn into outspoken critics.

[_Physics Guy]

I should not have said "obvious". It seems that way to most non-Mormons, but plenty of Mormons don't find it so.

What annoys me, though, is the way many Mormon apologists fail to take the fraud scenario seriously. They think they can dismiss it with ordinary appeals to plausibility: How could Smith have known X or had Y or done Z?

Con artists go out of their way to learn things that people won't expect them to know, to obtain materials that people won't expect them to have, to make friends that people won't expect them to ever have met. Highly implausible things that are just barely possible are the stock in trade of con artists. So once deliberate fraud is considered seriously, it's inherently extremely hard to rule out.

Ordinary history assumes that people only do plausible things, because con artists are thankfully rare. But even people who believe in genuine prophets should agree that genuine prophets are even rarer than con artists. So if we're supposed to take seriously the possibility that Smith was a prophet, then we should certainly take seriously the possibility that he was a con artist. And once that possibility is considered seriously, it's inherently hard to dismiss. That's the uphill battle that apologists cannot avoid.

[_Philo Sofee]

When they selectively bend evidence to the left or right, in order to fit a predefined conclusion.

However, this is an apt description of all apologetics on every subject they write on. There are no other answers they are allowed whether discreetly or directly from the church, than the "faithful" ones, you know, the ones that are answered in a temple recommend interview? It's always Jesus, Joseph, Current prophet, church. Always in the right and always true. There are no other answers they are allowed to come to. Apologetics as a spiritual exercise is always preordained with its answers. Only the footnotes are allowed to differ.

[_Dr Exiled]

Well it’s not an obvious fraud to everyone.

Of course it isn't an obvious fraud to everyone. Cognitive dissonance theory explains this well. One has to look at as an outsider would, trying real hard to escape the believing bias that was tattooed on our souls from our first remembrances of this life by our parents and fellow ward members and leaders. Then, one can see that it is like scientology or any of the other religions out there that have no proof.

[_Gadianton]

So if we're supposed to take seriously the possibility that Smith was a prophet, then we should certainly take seriously the possibility that he was a con artist. And once that possibility is considered seriously, it's inherently hard to dismiss.

Sure, but most people don't think about their personal lives logically in this way. Are Mormons really more biased in their thinking than everyone else, or do they suffer from the same kind of bias, but just happen to have a worse set of information to be biased about?

[_Lemmie]

Louis Midgley >> gemli
2 hours ago

But what gemli does toss around constantly is blank ignorance about, coupled with a total lack of interest in the faith of those he mocks, ridicules and constantly belittles. He is like a naughty little kid craves attention and who had somehow figured out how to constantly pass truly disgusting gas that generates attention. gemli seems to have a desperate need for some social interaction, even when it is negative, with other human beings.

When I first got to university, there were those who explained such behavior on poor early toilet training. I don't know what the explanation actually is. This is why I have wondered if gemli is married and has children, or friends. And uses posting comments on blogs as a way of having an exchange with other human beings. Recently he told us that he has been given the boot by an atheist blog. So it appears that even atheists had too much of a bad thing.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4604018330

THAT’S why midgley wonders if gemli has children, friends, or a spouse? Because of his own truly unfortunate fixation on bizarre inclusions of toilet topics into conversations??

Gemli takes it in stride:

gemli >> Louis Midgley
30 minutes ago

You certainly have a way with words. They conjure up vivid images and have a nice rhythm. Have you ever thought of writing children's books?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Louis Midgley

14 hours ago edited

The progress on this important project really pleases me. I have been busy, not doing something I was ordered to do, but trying to get my garage door mechanism replaced, my washing machine fixed, and purchasing an automobile to replace the one destroyed on Sunday morning in the parking lot in front of the Stake Center here in Provo, where someone drunk and on drugs smashed three vehicles, including my own. Dealing with insurance companies is a necessary pain. I now have a very nice automobile that I hope I can learn how to drive.

Perhaps Gemli paid The Midge a visit last Sunday?

- Doc