Lou Midgley: An LDS "Capo"?

[_Dr. Shades]

1. You note that J. Tanner felt that Prof. Midgley was being "boistrous and disrespectful." By any chance do you know what he meant by that? I.e., did Midgley raise his voice, or call her names, or something of that nature? Did he use any profanity?

To be honest, I don't remember any further details. He might not have used the actual word "boistrous," but that is the impression that Jerald conveyed. Maybe he used the word "loud?" I feel that, since I can't remember any more specifics (about supposed name calling, profanity, etc.), it would be disingenuous of me to speculate.

2. They actually came back to engage in even more harassment??? Well, I think that pretty much blows Jason Bourne's argument out of the water.

No, that's not exactly what she meant. She said that he came back and visited, but that he was merely disrespectful during his visit. Not so much toward her, but toward what he was seeing.

3. Am I correct to assume that Midgley's anti-homosexual remark was directed towards the work of D. Michael Quinn? I would assume so, since his two SHIELDS pieces make several mentions of Quinn.

I don't know. I didn't ask, and she didn't say. The reason I didn't ask is that I naturally assumed he was talking about Quinn.

[_Jason Bourne]

2. They actually came back to engage in even more harassment??? Well, I think that pretty much blows Jason Bourne's argument out of the water.

\
It does nothing of the sort. You were not there. We have Tanner's word again Midgely who says he was civil. And even if you assume that Midgley was a total jerk to Sandra that shows no sort of organized plan to harrass LDS critics on an on going basis by the LDS Church, nor by a group of hobby apologists. At most we have a couple of men who behaved badly on and afternoon.

Keep reaching to Scratch that itch you just cannot seem to satisfy Scratchy old boy or gal or whatever you are.

[_Dr. Shades]

We have Tanner's word again Midgely who says he was civil.

Remember, Midgley's version of "civil" and normal people's version of "civil" are two totally different things.

[_Mister Scratch]

2. They actually came back to engage in even more harassment??? Well, I think that pretty much blows Jason Bourne's argument out of the water.

\
It does nothing of the sort. You were not there.

Neither were you. And, anyways, I have understood your argument to be, in the main: This was all no big deal. Midgley & Co. simply stopped by one day to have a friendly chat. Well, that's not the case. It has been established that:
---Midgley "visited" several times
---Midgley phones S. Tanner on more than one occasion
---Midgley intended his visit to be a "stick it to you" session, as per his report on SHIELDS.
---There was much "high-fiving" amongst apologists over the whole thing. Again, CF. SHIELDS

We have Tanner's word again Midgely who says he was civil.

Louis Midgley does not have a reputation for civility. This is evident even in his various online postings.

And even if you assume that Midgley was a total jerk to Sandra that shows no sort of organized plan to harrass LDS critics on an on going basis by the LDS Church, nor by a group of hobby apologists.

I have never said that the LDS Church was issuing an official sanction for this kind of behavior. As to you latter remark: I think there is clear evidence that this "group of hobby apologists" (and the label "hobby apologists" is quite arguable, in my view) did and/or does engage in "harassment" of LDS critics. Heck, there is an entire archive of precisely this kind of stuff over at SHIELDS-RESEARCH. This archive dates clear back to 1997, and when you add this up with DCP's other interactions with critics, with Midgley's heckling of Grant Palmer, this S. Tanner incident, the attempts to tar Mike Quinn's reputation, the gossipmongering about Brent Metcalfe.... Well, I think that any reasonable person would have to come to the conclusion that these guys are, in effect, the modern-day version of the Danites. Sure, they won't kill you, but they will intimidate and harass you.

At most we have a couple of men who behaved badly on and afternoon.

Again, the evidence is far more extensive than that, my old friend.

[_Mister Scratch]

We have Tanner's word again Midgely who says he was civil.

Remember, Midgley's version of "civil" and normal people's version of "civil" are two totally different things.

Hmm, yes. Speaking of which, didn't you mention something about Midgley screaming profanities to the attendees of somebody's funeral? Do you have more details on that?

[_Gadianton]

Good point Shades. And also, keep in mind that people who get angry easy and out of control often don't see themselves that way. It's the, "I"M NOT YELLING!" syndrome.

[_Dr. Shades]

Speaking of which, didn't you mention something about Midgley screaming profanities to the attendees of somebody's funeral? Do you have more details on that?

It wasn't anyone's funeral. Lynne Kanavel Whitesides was undergoing a "court of love" for her LDS-related writings. There was a candlelight vigil taking place outside the stake center to show support for her.

I was told that Midgley drove around the parking lot screaming obscenities at those gathered for the vigil.

[_Gadianton]

John H. from Times and Seasons writes back in 2004

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1605,

I think Aaron’s characterization of Midgley in post 7 is so spot on it’s scary. I obviously don’t always agree with Dan Peterson, but it’s clear he’s brilliant, thoughtful, and well…normal. I don’t think the latter can apply to Midgley.

Let’s review, shall we?

1) Midgley shows up at a candlelight vigil for Lynne Whitesides, berating people, calling them children of Satan, and putting some in tears. I’m not an uncritical fan of the so-called September Six, but this is just bizarre.

2) Midgley attends the 25th anniversary of Signature Books at the University of Utah, talking loudly during the presentations, getting many glares and hushes from others. After the event he goes over to a table displaying Signature’s titles and loudly proclaims, “pathetic!”

3) While researching on (guess what?) Fawn Brodie at the University of Utah archives, Midgley repeatedly yells out phrases like, “I don’t believe it!” and “My goodness!” to no one in particular, scaring the crap out of the other patrons who think he’s a crazy man.

4) Midgley quizzes Grant Palmer during Palmer’s presentation of his book at Sam Weller’s, but doesn’t address the topics in the book. Instead, Midgley asks why Palmer wasn’t well liked on his mission to New Zealand, and questions Palmer’s faithfulness based on his popularity among the Maori.

5) Midgley calls up my friend’s 70 year-old mother (who, until I get his permission, will remain anonymous) and hounds her and berates her about her son’s involvement with Signature Books. He keeps harrassing her for information so he can get some dirt on her son.

And on and on. Midley probably holds the record for being banned from the most Mormon e-lists and groups. He has a well-known reputation for showing up at places he’s not welcome for the sole purpose of harrassing those in attendance.

Does this change the charges in his article? Not necessarily, but since FARMS is such a big fan of telling us about the authors of the books they review, it only seems fair if it’s a two-way st

Wow! I think Jason Bourne is out of his league here defending Midgley's temper. That whole blog entry is worth reading. Let's keep in mind that "Times and Seasons" is itself an apologetic related blog (there are defenses of Midgley there too), but it is very clear that many outside of clear-cut critics are suspicious of Midgley's ways.

The Tanner's are not the only victims of his verbal abuse.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow! I think Jason Bourne is out of his league here defending Midgley's temper. That whole blog entry is worth reading. Let's keep in mind that "Times and Seasons" is itself an apologetic related blog (there are defenses of Midgley there too), but it is very clear that many outside of clear-cut critics are suspicious of Midgley's ways.

The Tanner's are not the only victims of his verbal abuse.

Yes, this blog entry was quite intriguing. I noticed that both Blake Ostler and "Allen" (whom I assume is Allen Wyatt) were heavy participants. Are they also members of the exclusive and mysterious "l-skinny" list?

Further, check out this blatant falsehood from Professor Midgley:

This is the first time I have posted a word on a blog or board. Since I am being discussed, I assume that I will not be seen as forcing myself uninvited into a venue where I am not welcome. Yesterday several people called my attention to this thread. I have followed it with interest. I am now making myself available to answer questions any of you may have concerning (1) my moral depravity, and (2) any of my essays, including “The Signature Books Saga.”

Comment by Louis Midgley — 11/17/2004 @ 1:20 pm

(emphasis added)

Is he just playing semantic games? Or has he forgotten his postings to SHIELDS?

Elsewhere, check out this significant slip-up from DCP:

I consider the work of FARMS very important, for example. I wouldn’t have devoted so very much of my time to it, at substantial cost to my career as an Islamicist, if I did not.

D'oh! This seems a very open admission that BYU grants him continuing status (and continues to pay him a salary!) despite the fact that he has deliberately wounded his "career as an Islamicist"! I can't believe he actually said this! Elsewhere, he provides this sig-worthy boner:

Mormonism, to me, is ALL-important. Yet, globally, it’s scarcely a blip on the radar screen.

D'oh!

[_moksha]

Above: Matt Roper and Dr. Louis Midgley

Mrs. Tanner armed only with history had to square off against these two ruffians.
They are not even wearing white shirts! Where are their Quads???!