The Irrepressible Lou Midgley

[_Runtu]

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.

Uh, no, Pah. Chris is not an Evangelical. He has told me personally and said publicly that he's pretty much an agnostic. But, you know, it's easier to demonize him if people believe he's one of those EV anti-Mormons.

An informant sent me this quote from Chris from the board that must not be named:

Hi PaPa,

While you're correct that I don't particularly think Abraham was a historical person or that the Exodus/Joshua narrative occurred as reported in the Old Testament, there was more to my apostasy than just that. The following factors all contributed:

1) I came to the conclusion that many biblical texts were mythical and/or pseudepigraphal, including not only Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua, but also Deuteronomy, Daniel, and the Pastoral Epistles.
2) I became increasingly disturbed by biblical teachings that I believe are immoral, including animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism, arbitrary smiting, etc.
3) I became increasingly distressed by the narrow-mindedness of my religious community, which was committed not only to creationism, sexism, and heternormativity, but also to a militaristic Republican political agenda.
4) I came to reject the idea that God saves or damns people based on their religious beliefs, which I consider cruel and unfair.

I might have been able to reconcile myself to all that if not for number 5, the real dealbreaker:

5) I began to question the life and teachings of Jesus. How do we know Jesus wasn't just as bad as any modern cult leader? The Jesus of John's Gospel comes across as extremely narcissistic. Jesus did not return in "this generation" as he said he would. Atonement theology is nonsensical. And so on.

I don't expect anyone else to find all of this persuasive. For me, it was a process that took years, and I fought and clawed against it the whole way. Finally, though, there was just such a critical mass of problems that I couldn't live with it anymore. It was a relief to finally let go, even though I look back fondly on some things I miss about it.

Peace,

-Chris

Do those sound like the words of an Evangelical?

[_Pahoran]

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.

Uh, no, Pah. Chris is not an Evangelical. He has told me personally and said publicly that he's pretty much an agnostic. But, you know, it's easier to demonize him if people believe he's one of those EV anti-Mormons.

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.

The mythology of "demonising the anti-Mormons" is a popular one; especially among those anxiously engaged in "demonising the apolgists." However, there is no rule that says that an anti-Mormon must be an EV.

From what you tell me, Chris no longer regards himself as an EV. That's fine, but the fact is that when he first appeared on the LDS apologetic scene, that's how he presented. So if a former self-identification has stuck to him longer than it was accurate, that's not altogether surprising. There are still references around to a "Mormon apologist" named Kevin Graham. Is that the fault of those evil Mormon liars too?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_sock puppet]

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.

Lou: Dan, if you watch my back, I'll watch yours.

Dan: You got it.

And the rest is history.

[_keithb]

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.


Regards,
Pahoran

Seriously, wtf with this comment? If the man once identified as an EV and now identifies as an agnostic, then, in my book, he is an agnostic. I think he knows what religious affiliation he has better than you do.

It's similar to me claiming that you're not actually a human being but rather a cleverly disguised monkey trained to troll the message boards and fight with anyone who speaks ill of your favorite religion. You don't have any proof that you're not a monkey (and some of the things you do on these message boards, both here and over at the one where you ban people for disagreeing with you seem very monkey-like), but I would accept your word that you're not a monkey. Similarly, I think you should take this gentleman at his word that he's no longer an EV.

[cacheman]

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.

The mythology of "demonising the anti-Mormons" is a popular one; especially among those anxiously engaged in "demonising the apolgists." However, there is no rule that says that an anti-Mormon must be an EV.

Well, I've known you for, what, 16 years now, and I've seen enough demonizing from you (damn that Noah Webster) to know that it's not much of a myth in your case. But I do know, from having been on the other side of things, that EVs are a much easier target because there are a whole lot of assumptions that come with that label. That was my assumption as to why you called Chris an Evangelical. I may well have been wrong, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

From what you tell me, Chris no longer regards himself as an EV. That's fine, but the fact is that when he first appeared on the LDS apologetic scene, that's how he presented. So if a former self-identification has stuck to him longer than it was accurate, that's not altogether surprising.

No, but I figured that, since you've been around so long, and Chris's religious status is not recent news, you would certainly have known this. If you were ignorant of that fact, I apologize for suggesting that you might have other motivations for calling him an Evangelical.

There are still references around to a "Mormon apologist" named Kevin Graham. Is that the fault of those evil Mormon liars too?

Note that I have not said that Mormons are evil or liars, so kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth. That said, it is kind of funny and slightly disturbing that Kevin cannot outrun his past.

[_Pahoran]

Lou: Dan, if you watch my back, I'll watch yours.

Dan: You got it.

And the rest is history.

And the funniest part of that is that this kind of freewheeling fabrication actually passes for evidence around here.

Yes, this forum is a treasure, all right.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.


Regards,
Pahoran

Seriously, [elided] with this comment? If the man once identified as an EV and now identifies as an agnostic, then, in my book, he is an agnostic. I think he knows what religious affiliation he has better than you do.

Keith,

you might try reading things in sequence. It might help. Here, I'll help you out:

But, you know, it's easier to demonize him if people believe he's one of those EV anti-Mormons.

So I replied:

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.

Now: would you care to try again?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Runtu]

And the funniest part of that is that this kind of freewheeling fabrication actually passes for evidence around here.

Something like your freewheeling fabrication that I consider Mormons evil liars?

[_Pahoran]

No, I don't know that. And neither do you, although you may think it.

The mythology of "demonising the anti-Mormons" is a popular one; especially among those anxiously engaged in "demonising the apolgists." However, there is no rule that says that an anti-Mormon must be an EV.

Well, I've known you for, what, 16 years now, and I've seen enough demonizing from you (damn that Noah Webster)

Yes, I prefer British spelling. I think it has something to do with living in an English-speaking country.

to know that it's not much of a myth in your case.

In other words, you've bought into the mythology and decided that it applies to me. The fact that you don't like me very much is an entirely unrelated coincidence.

But I do know, from having been on the other side of things, that EVs are a much easier target because there are a whole lot of assumptions that come with that label.

And by the same token, there are a whole lot of assumptions that come with the label of "agnostic." For instance, "you can't possibly take seriously anything he says about prophets or revelation; he doesn't even believe in God!"

Why would anyone need to pretend an agnostic was an EV in order to "demonise" him?

That was my assumption as to why you called Chris an Evangelical. I may well have been wrong, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

And you notice how the myth feeds upon itself. You think I demonise people, so you interpret something I wrote in terms of the demonisation paradigm, and that in turn becomes further evidence that I demonise people. And so around and around it goes. Next month: "That Pahoran really loves to demonise people. He called Chris Smith an EV, just to demonise him!"

No, but I figured that, since you've been around so long, and Chris's religious status is not recent news, you would certainly have known this. If you were ignorant of that fact, I apologize for suggesting that you might have other motivations for calling him an Evangelical.

I admit, to my shame, that I haven't been following Chris's personal beliefs quite as obsessively as Scratch follows Dan Peterson's every move. In fact, although I was dimly aware that Chris's views weren't exactly orthodox Southern Baptist these days, I really hadn't given it much thought, and assumed -- errantly, as it turned out -- that he was simply a bit more "liberal" than the norm.

Note that I have not said that Mormons are evil or liars, so kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth.

I didn't say you had; but you were posting in defense of Kevin, who told us, in shocked and outraged tones, about Mormon apologists maliciously accusing Chris Smith of being an EV in order to establish what, exactly?

That said, it is kind of funny and slightly disturbing that Kevin cannot outrun his past.

And by the same token, I may not be the only person who did not receive the memo on Chris's updated beliefs. And that may not automagically be due to someone wanting to "demonise" him.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Calculus Crusader]

An informant sent me this quote from Chris from the board that must not be named:

Hi PaPa,

While you're correct that I don't particularly think Abraham was a historical person or that the Exodus/Joshua narrative occurred as reported in the Old Testament, there was more to my apostasy than just that. The following factors all contributed:

1) I came to the conclusion that many biblical texts were mythical and/or pseudepigraphal, including not only Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua, but also Deuteronomy, Daniel, and the Pastoral Epistles.
2) I became increasingly disturbed by biblical teachings that I believe are immoral, including animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism, arbitrary smiting, etc.
3) I became increasingly distressed by the narrow-mindedness of my religious community, which was committed not only to creationism, sexism, and heternormativity, but also to a militaristic Republican political agenda.
4) I came to reject the idea that God saves or damns people based on their religious beliefs, which I consider cruel and unfair.

I might have been able to reconcile myself to all that if not for number 5, the real dealbreaker:

5) I began to question the life and teachings of Jesus. How do we know Jesus wasn't just as bad as any modern cult leader? The Jesus of John's Gospel comes across as extremely narcissistic. Jesus did not return in "this generation" as he said he would. Atonement theology is nonsensical. And so on.

I don't expect anyone else to find all of this persuasive. For me, it was a process that took years, and I fought and clawed against it the whole way. Finally, though, there was just such a critical mass of problems that I couldn't live with it anymore. It was a relief to finally let go, even though I look back fondly on some things I miss about it.

Peace,

-Chris

Do those sound like the words of an Evangelical?

No. They are far too vapid to come from an Evangelical Christian.