The Irrepressible Lou Midgley

[_Pahoran]

But, Kish, to Simon's point....If being anonymous is that important to Scratch, then why should Scratch, or anyone who holds his/her anonymity to be that important, have the audacity to ask someone else to give up their anonymity?

Maybe to get them to stop asking him to give up his anonymity?

Or not. But nice try.

Your hero made his name early in the history of this board when he started collecting creepy little "dossiers" on his ideological opponents, including their in real life details. While, of course, zealously protecting his own. The cowardice of this approach is obvious to everyone less sycophantic towards him than you are. The so-called "moderators" grunted and oinked with glee.

Then someone called "Mr Itchy" on ZLMB produced a tit-for-tat set of "dossiers" on a number of the chief swine here, including your hero and Shades. Immediately, the so-called "moderators" became solemn and po-faced. They besieged ZLMB until the "Itchy" dossiers were taken down, and they reluctantly issued a policy that people's in real life details weren't allowed to be posted here. That policy is enforced rather inconsistently, the moderators being too busy batting for the home team.

So again, claiming that the Malevolent Stalker asks people to give up their anonymity only to stop them asking him to give up his was a nice try, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Calculus Crusader]

Lou Midgley's noxious reputation is found in many venues.

That's because a reputation does not consist in what someone does; it consists in what others say about him. Lou Midgley's reputation in anti-Mormon circles is "noxious" because anti-Mormons gossip about him.

Midgley is a petty man with petty thoughts. I base my opinion of him on what he has written; I don't need "gossip."

[_stemelbow]

Pahoran,

That's because a reputation does not consist in what someone does; it consists in what others say about him. Lou Midgley's reputation in anti-Mormon circles is "noxious" because anti-Mormons gossip about him.

As one who is characterized as bad (other terms seem inappropriate and silly to use so bad will do) by some around here, I think this point rings true.

[_Kevin Graham]

That's because a reputation does not consist in what someone does; it consists in what others say about him. Lou Midgley's reputation in anti-Mormon circles is "noxious" because anti-Mormons gossip about him.

ROFL! I was wondering how long it would take Pahoran to start blaming everything on those evil anti-Mormons! One would think that after all these years he could try a more sophisticated approach than well-poisoning.

But it is also funny how his logic never pertains to the reputation-shaping gossip born in LDS apologetic circles, about those folks who are arbitrarily dubbed "anti-Mormon." Certainly no one outside LDS circles would consider, oh let's say, folks like Robert Ritner, Dan Vogle or Brent Metcalfe lacking reputation. But if you mention any of these names at LDS conferences you'll start hearing all sorts of lies. Metcalfe stole documents while working for the Church, Ritner was trhown off Gee's dissertation committee for being too anti-Mormon, etc. You guys live for this crap.

The fact is I have seen the dark side of both insititutions, and I can state with confidence that the so-called "anti-Mormon" community isn't nearly as organized or motivated to successfully propagate false rumors.

Mormons, on the other hand, are masters of gossip and well-posioning. From your silly e-list exchanges, to the little gossip circles at your conferences, to the numerous idiotic hit pieces published by FARMS, to the chat room chatter on the forums, etc. It is a joke that any of you could complain that someone like Midgley was being lied about. Are you saying that it is a lie that he walked into the Tanner's store and called Quinn a "queer"? Really? Does anyone really doubt that this is well within the character of this old fart? Sure, he is probably sweet in his own way given the right company, but so is my 70 year old racist step-father.

Nothing compares to the outrageous attempts by your ilk to demean and belittle those who dare disagree with your theological convictions that Joseph Smith was able to do all the things that conflicts with all reasonable standards of evidence. But such is the nature of religious groups, and Mormonism is not the exception to the rule; it is the rule. You're some of the most gossipy folks God ever put on this planet and I believe you do it as a defense mechanism as it helps with the cognitive dissonance which is to be expected of any group that has to adapt to so many ridiculously implausible doctrines.

People sometimes ask me when I will make my wife stop going to Church, and I tell them the Church will do all the work for me because my wife hates gossip. Lo and behold, after attending the new ward for three weeks she has said she has had enough. There is simply no way, if God truly exists, that this could be his "one true Church."

[_Pahoran]

Midgley is a petty man with petty thoughts.

This from the fellow who thinks only his kind of Christians are Christians at all.

That's because a reputation does not consist in what someone does; it consists in what others say about him. Lou Midgley's reputation in anti-Mormon circles is "noxious" because anti-Mormons gossip about him.

ROFL! I was wondering how long it would take Pahoran to start blaming everything on those evil anti-Mormons! One would think that after all these years he could try a more sophisticated approach than well-poisoning.

That's an astonishingly hypocritical remark for you to make, given that absolutely everything you and your ilk have said about Professor Midgley and Professor Peterson in this thread has been nothing but "well-poisoning."

The fact is that you, collectively, are a gang of spiteful haters who cannot stand the thought of anyone thinking well of one of your favourite targets; hence this disgraceful -- but thoroughly typical -- dog-pile on Professor Peterson for the dreadful crime of speaking up in defence of his friend.

But it is also funny how his logic never pertains to the reputation-shaping gossip born in LDS apologetic circles, about those folks who are arbitrarily dubbed "anti-Mormon." Certainly no one outside LDS circles would consider, oh let's say, folks like Robert Ritner, Dan Vogle or Brent Metcalfe lacking reputation.

Ritner is, of course, an important Egyptologist. But precisely what "reputation" do you imagine Vogel and Metcalfe to have, apart from their questionable contributions to Mormon letters?

But if you mention any of these names at LDS conferences you'll start hearing all sorts of lies. Metcalfe stole documents while working for the Church, Ritner was trhown off Gee's dissertation committee for being too anti-Mormon, etc.

And yet I've only heard these supposed lies from anti-Mormon sources.

Funny, that.

Are you saying that it is a lie that he walked into the Tanner's store and called Quinn a "queer"? Really? Does anyone really doubt that this is well within the character of this old fart?

"Old fart?" He's a better man than you could ever dream of being.

Including being more courteous and considerate than you.

The question is: Does anyone doubt that fabricating (or embellishing) such a story is well within the character of any of the anti-Mormons on this thread?

Including, not to put too fine a point on it, you?

People sometimes ask me when I will make my wife stop going to Church, and I tell them the Church will do all the work for me because my wife hates gossip. Lo and behold, after attending the new ward for three weeks she has said she has had enough. There is simply no way, if God truly exists, that this could be his "one true Church."

Of course that's a complete non sequitur; but it is in the nature of bigots to extrapolate, not merely from the behaviour of the few to the nature of the whole despised group, but to attempt to draw conclusions about the hated group's raison d'etre.

Congratulations.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

It must be bad for Lou Midgley if his principal character witness is Pahoran. That's like getting David Vitter to defend your moral uprightness, or having me testify to your sincerity.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It must be bad for Lou Midgley if his principal character witness is Pahoran. That's like getting David Vitter to defend your moral uprightness, or having me testify to your sincerity.

Man's gotta earn his keep somehow.

[_Dan Vogel]

Knowing how this board values dissent and freedom of opinion, and having seen the pretty much unquestioned consensus here regarding my friend Louis Midgley, I thought that my dissenting view regarding Professor Midgley might be welcomed by the independent minds who inhabit this place.

I first encountered Dr. Midgley when, as a freshman at BYU, I saw him eviscerate Cleon Skousen in a debate about American politics held in the Wilkinson Center ballroom. I didn't get to know him, though, until after I joined the BYU faculty myself, in 1985.

Since then, we've become close friends and associates. I've also come to know and admire his wife Ireta. I stayed with them and traveled around with them on two different trips to New Zealand while they were directing the LDS Institute in Auckland after his retirement, and I've spent time in their home, visited Ireta when she was sick in the hospital, and so forth.

They are among my very favorite people.

Lou has personality coming out his ears and a tremendous sense of impish humor, as well as a zest for intellectual combat and polemics and an overflowing fountain of opinions, but he has no detectable ego and, so far as I've ever seen, not a mean bone in his body. He's having fun, and expects everybody else to be having fun, too.

Everyone I know who actually knows Lou holds him in great affection. I regard him as a lovable curmudgeon, a true original.

His style is not always mine. I shy away from public confrontations, and would rather defuse a clash than cause one. But the stories of horrible and vicious behavior that are constantly repeated about him by certain critics are, in my judgment, overwrought, grossly exaggerated, and substantially misleading.

Let the praise and and expressions of gratitude begin. I thank you in advance.

I don't know him as well as you, but I have had a few "fun" conversations with him and he has always treated me kindly.

[_Kevin Graham]

That's an astonishingly hypocritical remark for you to make, given that absolutely everything you and your ilk have said about Professor Midgley and Professor Peterson in this thread has been nothing but "well-poisoning."

Uh, Dan Peterson started this thread. He is the one who brought up the topic of Lou. This isn't MAD where only whitewashed versions of all things LDS are acceptable. If you open a can of worms, then don't expect to see white noodles. Plenty of people here have their own experiences with Lou. What makes Dan's testimony of his experiences with Lou any more legitimate than those who have had negative experiences?

And yet I've only heard these supposed lies from anti-Mormon sources.

Funny, that.

Stop lying. You know damn well these lies were started by Gee and propagated by his cohorts like Dan Peterson. He only stopped talking about it when Ritner threatened to post all the relevant emails proving Gee has been lying. And I heard this BS when I was on the FAIR e-list years ago ( hardly an "Anti-Mormon" source) and everyone loved talking about this crap because for them, it was a way of dismissing Ritner without having to deal with his various refutations of the proven liar named John Gee. This is the same reason Chris Smith is called an Evanglical. For Mormons, all non-LDS are potential boogymen, but they check their brains at the door when they believe someone is an Evangelical.

"Old fart?" He's a better man than you could ever dream of being.

Including being more courteous and considerate than you.

Based on what evidence? Because he calls homosexuals "queers" behind their backs? Or maybe his treatment of fellow "brothers and sisters" within the fold? You guys are swell peaches when it comes to taking care of your own, I know. But when one steps out of line and uses his/her brain to question LDS claims of authority, suddenly their demonization becomes a priority. In publication if not public confrontation. Midgley is among a special group (you included) who epitomize this trait in LDS apologetics.

The question is: Does anyone doubt that fabricating (or embellishing) such a story is well within the character of any of the anti-Mormons on this thread?

I doubt even you or Dan believe this. All you are doing now is deflecting for PR purposes. Are you going to sit there and lie through your teeth and say that you do not believe Lou did this? You know damn well he did. Come one Russell, you have it in you. Stop dodging and answer the question.

Of course that's a complete non sequitur; but it is in the nature of bigots to extrapolate, not merely from the behaviour of the few to the nature of the whole despised group, but to attempt to draw conclusions about the hated group's raison d'etre.

Uh, stop projecting. This is precisely what you do every time you vomit the word "anti-Mormon" and then proceed with a psychoanalytical rant about how deceptive and sinful they are. But you are taught to believe this from day one as an LDS member, so I guess you think all of this means you're just an obedient member.

[_Pahoran]

That's an astonishingly hypocritical remark for you to make, given that absolutely everything you and your ilk have said about Professor Midgley and Professor Peterson in this thread has been nothing but "well-poisoning."

Uh, Dan Peterson started this thread. He is the one who brought up the topic of Lou. This isn't MAD where only whitewashed versions of all things LDS are acceptable. If you open a can of worms, then don't expect to see white noodles.

Which leads to exactly what I said before: The fact is that you, collectively, are a gang of spiteful haters who cannot stand the thought of anyone thinking well of one of your favourite targets; hence this disgraceful -- but thoroughly typical -- dog-pile on Professor Peterson for the dreadful crime of speaking up in defence of his friend.

Plenty of people here have their own experiences with Lou. What makes Dan's testimony of his experiences with Lou any more legitimate than those who have had negative experiences?

The fact that he reports the events as they occurred -- despite the Malevolent Stalker's diligent attempts to spin something negative out of them -- while you can only give us a thoroughly hostile editorialising about something Professor Midgley is supposed to have said.

And Blixa can only report gossip about him.

Stop lying.

Take your own advice. You have a habit of accusing everyone who has a different view of things than you do of "lying." In that, you are clearly projecting your own complete lack of honesty upon your opponents.

The fact is that I am truthfully reporting my experiences of these things. I suggest you suck it up.

You know damn well these lies were started by Gee and propagated by his cohorts like Dan Peterson.

I know no such thing. But if Professor Gee did indeed report that that was what happened, then it probably did.

He only stopped talking about it when Ritner threatened to post all the relevant emails proving Gee has been lying.

In other words, you are reporting gossip as fact, and labelling as "liars" everyone who disagrees with you. As you habitually do.

And I heard this BS when I was on the FAIR e-list years ago ( hardly an "Anti-Mormon" source) and everyone loved talking about this crap because for them, it was a way of dismissing Ritner without having to deal with his various refutations of the proven liar named John Gee.

You've offered no proof that he is a liar. The only evidence I see for his dishonesty is that you hate him and call him a liar at no provocation at all; which, for those of us who know you, actually goes in his favour.

This is the same reason Chris Smith is called an Evanglical. For Mormons, all non-LDS are potential boogymen, but they check their brains at the door when they believe someone is an Evangelical.

To quote yourself: "Stop lying." Chris Smith is called an EV because Chris Smith calls himself an EV. All that suspicion-based mind-reading is just another example of you projecting your own pervasive dishonesty upon those you so passionately hate.

But when one steps out of line and uses his/her brain to question LDS claims of authority, suddenly their demonization becomes a priority. In publication if not public confrontation. Midgley is among a special group (you included) who epitomize this trait in LDS apologetics.

Such is the standard anti-Mormon mantra; and so, of course, it is false. Which of course is how you prefer it. The fact is that Professor Midgley sometimes looks into the intellectual history of those who publish against the Church, and examines the claims they make for themselves. I realise you'd rather those claims went unchallenged; but tough luck. It's not going to happen.

Uh, stop projecting. This is precisely what you do every time you vomit the word "anti-Mormon" and then proceed with a psychoanalytical rant about how deceptive and sinful they are. But you are taught to believe this from day one as an LDS member, so I guess you think all of this means you're just an obedient member.

Why do you repeat such brazen lies?

Regards,
Pahoran