DiscussMormonism.com

Daniel Peterson wrote:For an account of a spirited and lengthy exchange between two people who disagree strongly with one another, I think it's perfectly adequate and reasonable to trust what just one of them says about the exchange -- and particularly so if you're quite unsympathetic to the other person and if it makes that other person look gratifyingly bad.

So your suggesting that Meldrum engaged in a "spirited and lengthy" exchange when Midgley supposedly approached him out of the blue and dumped on him?

Does Meldrum and Midgley have a history beyond this experience?

RockSlider wrote:So your suggesting that Meldrum engaged in a "spirited and lengthy" exchange when Midgley supposedly approached him out of the blue and dumped on him?

Everybody seems to believe that that's what happened. I have no reason to doubt it.

RockSlider wrote:Does Meldrum and Midgley have a history beyond this experience?

They've communicated a great deal both before and since.

Daniel Peterson wrote:For an account of a spirited and lengthy exchange between two people who disagree strongly with one another, I think it's perfectly adequate and reasonable to trust what just one of them says about the exchange -- and particularly so if you're quite unsympathetic to the other person and if it makes that other person look gratifyingly bad.

In that case, please invite Dr. Midgley here so he can give his side of the story.

Daniel Peterson wrote:For an account of a spirited and lengthy exchange between two people who disagree strongly with one another, I think it's perfectly adequate and reasonable to trust what just one of them says about the exchange -- and particularly so if you're quite unsympathetic to the other person and if it makes that other person look gratifyingly bad.

This is one of the reasons you've taken so much heat over the years, Dan. If you have some kind of information that would help us to evaluate the situation differently, then present it. Don't come in here throwing "Doubt Bombs" for no reason. [Remember: 5 years. Half a decade. Help put a stop to it.]

Dr. Shades,

I found this part of your remark to be astonishing:

Dr. Shades wrote:Once more, my memory is a little fuzzy on this next part too, but here goes: Continuing with the theme of FAIR types, he brought up the first attacks that FAIR made against him. Seeing this, he magnanimously offered to contact Scott Gordon "mano-a-mano" to hammer things out and come to a mutual understanding. Although Meldrum thought that the details had been settled upon, when they finally made contact, Meldrum discovered that Scott Gordon was on the line with the FAIR board of directors. So instead of being one-on-one, Meldrum was shocked to see that it was nine-on-one.

NINE on one? Nine on one? How many lies are we going to be fed by these people? Wiki Wonka tells us that the FAIR Board consists of DCP, Kevin Barney, and John Lynch. MIke Parker turns up to tell us that we can't know unless we register and/or show up at the FAIR Conference. So what's the truth? Who, exactly, is on the Board of FAIR? Meldrum seems to be saying here that the FAIR Board has *nine* members. I've always thought it was weird the Scott Gordon--the freaking president--was supposedly not a member, but...

What are we to make of this?

Daniel Peterson wrote:They've communicated a great deal both before and since.

And have these correspondences been cordial, or are they typically heated and contentious from both sides?

Also, I hate to side with scratch, but "doubt bomb" was a good description or your reply here. Please do share your understandings of it. It would be nice to hear all sides of the story.

Shade's summary of his experience with Meldrum left me with the impression that Meldrum basically had little interest in apologetics or other views and basically minded his own business/interests. It sounded like he only cared/contacted FAIR because of negative feedback from them, in an effort to settle things. Would this be the wrong impression?

Of course some critics might love Meldrum simply because of the opposition with FAIR/FARMS, and yet others might accuse him of simply chasing the money etc.

Shade's leaves the impression he is sincere and mostly humble about the deal. Please, what is your personal take on this man?

I've never been involved in any phone call -- neither one on one nor nine on one -- with Rod Meldrum. We've exchanged perhaps two e-mails, and we once spoke, quite pleasantly, to each other at the funeral of a mutual friend. That's it.

Mike Parker didn't tell anybody that one can't know who the members of the FAIR board are unless one registers and/or shows up at the FAIR Conference. He did say that everybody at the FAIR conference can easily see who's on the FAIR board. That's rather a different point. It shows that there's no secrecy about the membership of the board.

Dr. Shades wrote:In that case, please invite Dr. Midgley here so he can give his side of the story.

No thanks. I don't encourage any of my friends to post here. Anyway, Professor Midgley has plenty on his plate at the moment.

Doctor Scratch wrote:This is one of the reasons you've taken so much heat over the years, Dan.

Yeah. It's pretty radical to point out that, if two people who strongly disagree with one another have a rather strong and prolonged exchange, it's probably unwise for a third person to assume that getting the account of that exchange from only one of them will provide a balanced understanding.

Doctor Scratch wrote:If you have some kind of information that would help us to evaluate the situation differently, then present it. Don't come in here throwing "Doubt Bombs" for no reason.

Common sense is quite sufficient reason.

Republican and Democrat have an argument. Republican tells Third Party how he creamed Democrat at every point in the debate, making an utter fool out of him. Democrat never even landed a blow. Should Third Party take that as gospel? Of course!

Frankie and Johnny go through a bitter divorce, each blaming the other. Stranger listens to Johnny's side of the story, concludes that Frankie is a witch with a capital B, and resolves that there is no need to hear Frankie's side of the story since Stranger has already heard the full story from Johnny.

Only a fool like me would see something amiss in either of those scenarios, right?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Remember: 5 years. Half a decade. Help put a stop to it.

You can stop it whenever you choose.

I can't. I did nothing to deserve it, and, realistically, nothing I can do will put an end to it.

You're a free agent, Scratch. It's your choice.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Mike Parker didn't tell anybody that one can't know who the members of the FAIR board are unless one registers and/or shows up at the FAIR Conference. He did say that everybody at the FAIR conference can easily see who's on the FAIR board. That's rather a different point. It shows that there's no secrecy about the membership of the board.

I am wondering how you know Mike Parker didn't tell anybody that one can't know who the members of the FAIR board are unless one registers and/or shows up at the FAIR Conference? Is he incapable of that? Were you present for the entire exchange with Meldrum when it took place and therefore know he did not? Did you ask Mike Parker and he denied having said so? If so, have you asked Rodney Meldrum his version to get both sides before proclaiming Mike Parker said no such thing?

If there's no secrecy about the membership of the board, why the dodginess, both by Parker suggesting someone can see if they go to conference and by you? Why not just name them when asked? Is giving a straight answer to a question that difficult for you and Parker?

You know, I can get that we have not heard Lou Midgley's side of the story. And, I am sure he can provide us a justification for all of his actions in these things. But how many Lou Midgley stories, in which Lou's excitable nature features prominently, does one need to hear to wonder whether there might be a lot of truth in them?

I am in court, and let's say there are a dozen witnesses who take the stand to tell me of their firsthand experiences with Lou exploding about this or that. Then Lou takes the stand and puts on a great show of being a totally reasonable guy. Were all dozen witnesses, a decent number of whom have no personal connection to each other or much in common by way of ideological viewpoint, just making it all up?

I am sorry. This is one of those instances where I think the evidence leads to a fairly clear conclusion: Lou Midgley is a demonstrative fellow who gets publicly worked up about Mormon issues and is not the least bit shy about fulminating over them in front of total strangers or directly at the targets of his displeasure.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Mike Parker didn't tell anybody that one can't know who the members of the FAIR board are unless one registers and/or shows up at the FAIR Conference. He did say that everybody at the FAIR conference can easily see who's on the FAIR board. That's rather a different point. It shows that there's no secrecy about the membership of the board.

Bull. If there's not "secrecy," then list the board members' names here on this thread. Post them on the FAIR Website.

Doctor Scratch wrote:This is one of the reasons you've taken so much heat over the years, Dan.

Yeah. It's pretty radical to point out that, if two people who strongly disagree with one another have a rather strong and prolonged exchange, it's probably unwise for a third person to assume that getting the account of that exchange from only one of them will provide a balanced understanding.

Meldrum's side seems to have always been that he was simply offering up his sincere testimony, and then, later, that he tried to smooth over the misunderstanding(s) with FAIR. As to your assertion here that he and Midgley had "a rather strong and prolonged exchange".... Well, it doesn't sound like there was much of an "exchange" at all. It sounds like Midgley simply stormed up to him and began screaming in his face.

Doctor Scratch wrote:If you have some kind of information that would help us to evaluate the situation differently, then present it. Don't come in here throwing "Doubt Bombs" for no reason.

Common sense is quite sufficient reason.

Republican and Democrat have an argument. Republican tells Third Party how he creamed Democrat at every point in the debate, making an utter fool out of him. Democrat never even landed a blow. Should Third Party take that as gospel? Of course!

Frankie and Johnny go through a bitter divorce, each blaming the other. Stranger listens to Johnny's side of the story, concludes that Frankie is a witch with a capital B, and resolves that there is no need to hear Frankie's side of the story since Stranger has already heard the full story from Johnny.

Only a fool like me would see something amiss in either of those scenarios, right?

First of all---what? Where are you getting these over-blown, ridiculous comparative "scenarios"? Reps. and Dems.? Seriously? Aren't Midgley and Meldrum both supposed to be TBMs? And a "bitter divorce"? Meldrum disagrees about the location of the Book of Mormon events. This disagreement, in your eyes, is on a par with a "bitter divorce"?

Regardless, we've already asked you and Midgley to give your side of the story. You refuse. "Common sense" dictates that you're likely hiding something.