Still gemli's gems: still the best reason to read a blog

[Moksha]

Midgely seems unable to let anything that gemli says go by without a snide remark, or a demeaning assumption.

In his mind, is this a valiant defense of Mormonism?

RutyLou gave me a zinger the other day in the comments section of the Salt Lake Tribune.

I find it endearing when Gemli is playful with Ideeho and will refer to himself in the third person to meet Lou's eccentricity.

[Lem]

I’ll have to follow up with this in a different thread, but in response to gemli, ideeho posted this:

Obviously, excavational archaeology still has a long way to go in reconstructing a complete history of Mesoamerican metallurgy, including both terrestrial and meteoric iron among more than a dozen known metals and alloys. Eminent metallurgical expert Dudley Easby commented regarding this history, "The relative [apparent] absence of metals in the early Americas constitutes one of the most infuriatingly enigmatic subjects in the history of technology." [footnotes omitted]

If I’ve learned anything about apologetics, it is to check the footnotes. In short, it turns out that “eminent metallurgical expert” Easby was actually a lawyer, “self-trained” in metallurgy, who was the Legal secretary for a museum, and had metallurgy as a hobby. In a general article overviewing metallurgy for non-experts (the article’s description!) he stated the above sentence quoted by ID.

Also, the article was from 1966. THAT is the mopologist’s “eminent expert.” Unbelievable.

[Philo Sofee]

I’ll have to follow up with this in a different thread, but in response to gemli, ideeho posted this:

Obviously, excavational archaeology still has a long way to go in reconstructing a complete history of Mesoamerican metallurgy, including both terrestrial and meteoric iron among more than a dozen known metals and alloys. Eminent metallurgical expert Dudley Easby commented regarding this history, "The relative [apparent] absence of metals in the early Americas constitutes one of the most infuriatingly enigmatic subjects in the history of technology." [footnotes omitted]

If I’ve learned anything about apologetics, it is to check the footnotes. In short, it turns out that “eminent metallurgical expert” Easby was actually a lawyer, “self-trained” in metallurgy, who was the Legal secretary for a museum, and had metallurgy as a hobby. In a general article overviewing metallurgy for non-experts (the article’s description!) he stated the above sentence quoted by ID.

Also, the article was from 1966. THAT is the mopologist’s “eminent expert.” Unbelievable.

Excellent! Yes, never assume the adjectives Apologists use of "experts" are valid when it comes to archaeology or history. It is critical to always assume they are fudging, because.... well,...... they are, it is their method. Always impressed more with authority than logic and sound analysis, that is apologetics for you. Your are spot on Lem, thanks for all your efforts, we are reading your contributions, I assure you.

[Lem]

I’ll have to follow up with this in a different thread, but in response to gemli, ideeho posted this:

If I’ve learned anything about apologetics, it is to check the footnotes. In short, it turns out that “eminent metallurgical expert” Easby was actually a lawyer, “self-trained” in metallurgy, who was the Legal secretary for a museum, and had metallurgy as a hobby. In a general article overviewing metallurgy for non-experts (the article’s description!) he stated the above sentence quoted by ID.

Also, the article was from 1966. THAT is the mopologist’s “eminent expert.” Unbelievable.

Excellent! Yes, never assume the adjectives Apologists use of "experts" are valid when it comes to archaeology or history. It is critical to always assume they are fudging, because.... well,...... they are, it is their method. Always impressed more with authority than logic and sound analysis, that is apologetics for you. Your are spot on Lem, thanks for all your efforts, we are reading your contributions, I assure you.

Thank you so much! I appreciate your comments, always.

I've always been pretty careful about sources in general, but this particular habit -always checking footnotes on lds apologetic papers- I will credit to my dear friend, grindael, may he rest in peace. It was a running joke between us that virtually every mopologetic effort he introduced me to had a significant problem with, um, "footnote accuracy."

On a serious note, it is offensive that lds members, in good faith, rely fully on these fairmormon sources, and don't even consider that this group may be less than transparent about their work. Fairmormon is taking advantage of honest people.

[Philo Sofee]

Excellent! Yes, never assume the adjectives Apologists use of "experts" are valid when it comes to archaeology or history. It is critical to always assume they are fudging, because.... well,...... they are, it is their method. Always impressed more with authority than logic and sound analysis, that is apologetics for you. Your are spot on Lem, thanks for all your efforts, we are reading your contributions, I assure you.

Thank you so much! I appreciate your comments, always.

I've always been pretty careful about sources in general, but this particular habit -always checking footnotes on lds apologetic papers- I will credit to my dear friend, grindael, may he rest in peace. It was a running joke between us that virtually every mopologetic effort he introduced me to had a significant problem with, um, "footnote accuracy."

On a serious note, it is offensive that lds members, in good faith, rely fully on these fairmormon sources, and don't even consider that this group may be less than transparent about their work. Fairmormon is taking advantage of honest people.

They can do no else, the leadership will not allow it. It is not about truth, it is all about image. Fully within the orbit of Mormonism is the problem. If the members are deceived, they have only themselves to thank for it, since they can check the sources themselves when they want. The laziness of habit of being convinced the leaders will never lead them astray is an agreed contract mentally of their own agreement. It's tough, but the experience, like mine, will certainly in the long run make them far better and vastly more careful readers before believing anything written by a Mormon again. They have to go through the process of being deceived before they care enough to do what little work it actually takes to see they are drinking poisoned Kool Aid that spiritually stifles them. They will get it, it will just take time. After all, that's what time is for right? To waste away with a life far less lived and far more obedient than ever needed to be. Being subservient to a system that only wants your money. They'll come around...

[Moksha]

Has Dr. Peterson gotten any better with his footnotes and attributions?

[dastardly stem]

Has Dr. Peterson gotten any better with his footnotes and attributions?

You have to wonder where Gee got his notion that footnotes and attributions are bothersome items that get in the way of his position, are used out of obligation and anyone who looks into them to learn he's got no support for his position are doing nothing more than fighting against Jesus.

[Philo Sofee]

Has Dr. Peterson gotten any better with his footnotes and attributions?

You have to wonder where Gee got his notion that footnotes and attributions are bothersome items that get in the way of his position, are used out of obligation and anyone who looks into them to learn he's got no support for his position are doing nothing more than fighting against Jesus.

That is rather lopsided all right....... just wow. Yeah citing everyone else who doesn't agree with me is bothersome so lets get rid of footnotes, and just let me tell the truth! Forget what everyone else says. I am right because......well, I say so!

[Lem]

The incomparable gemli:

gemli Louis Midgley 2 hours ago

Gemli does not live under a rock, so he is aware of the Bible and what it says. Atheists are often more knowledgeable about the Bible, it's origin and the wildly inaccurate and bizarre nature of its claims than are most Christians. Our lives would be far less interesting and exciting if we didn't have theists to argue with. The LDS folks are especially interesting because their miraculous claims are so recent that they're a great deal more fun to talk about, although the degree of eye rolling they provoke can sometimes cause frequent trips to the ophthalmologist.

Gemli does not think that just anyone could produce a book as complex as the Book of Mormon. It would take someone who had a terrific imagination, deep and frequent exposure to Bible stories, access to unsophisticated townspeople and no scruples whatsoever. Gemli fails to fulfill a single one of these qualifications. He's deeply interested in reality, which is a serious handicap when one must believe in magical beings for which there is absolutely no evidence.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 5267655073

[Moksha]

gemli Danite Operative • a day ago

Danite Operative said:
"gemli logic:

-There is no evidence for God
-I do not know what I would even accept as evidence for God"

Gemli Reply:
What would you accept as evidence of faeries in your garden? Or gnomes? or Leprechauns?

Apologists can never break even with Gemli in an argument unless they approach him with complete honesty. That means never begging the question by claiming your assumptions are true. State what you believe and how that benefits you. The more pretense you bring to your arguments, the more you lose to Gemli. Hope that helps.