Above: Matt Roper and Dr. Louis Midgley: Modern-day Danites?
The past couple of weeks have been a real whirlwind. Much has been disclosed concerning the mysterious and rather dubious nature of apologetics, and, before moving on to the real meat of this thread, I felt that a brief summary would be useful. Here are the key facts which have recently come to light:
- The LDS Church has provided a "fundraiser" whose job is to drum up funds for Mormon Apologetics. This "fundraiser" sometimes makes announcements to large gatherings, and, at other times, this "fundraiser" meets in more intimate settings with small groups of wealthy LDS, or with affluent Mormon individuals.
Some apologists receive payment for apologetics. This payment can be made either for written materials, or for administrative duties.
In some cases, BYU salaries are meant to cover administrative work done on behalf of apologetic endeavors.
Some individuals---such as Matt Roper, who is classified as a "research assistant" and "visiting scholar"---are apparently employed full-time as apologists, although DCP and others are reluctant to admit this.
It is this last point---Matt Roper as a full-time apologist---that brings me to the matter at hand. For this thread, we must take a bit of a trip down memory lane.
On a pleasant June day in 1997, Sandra Tanner, one of the proprietors of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry Bookstore was quietly going about her business when two men---the above pictured Roper and Midgley (and perhaps one other individual)---stormed in. It turns out that they were anxious to score a point or two, and perhaps to scare the Tanners into silence. According to Lou Midgley's account of the incident, which is available at SHIELDS, his intent was to browbeat her into submission, and to end her criticism of the LDS Church:
Dr. Midgley wrote:I explained to Sandra that [Larry] Foster had correctly argued that the Tanners are entirely unwilling to subject their own faith and its foundations to the kinds of demands that they make of Latter-day Saints. To this Sandra replied that Foster was right. I tried to explain that there is something wrong with insisting that we satisfy her demands for what she calls proof and for consistency, when she does not require that Evangelicals satisfy those same standards. Her reply was that her evangelical faith was true and hence did not need to satisfy any standards of proof. And Latter-day Saint faith is false and hence must satisfy her really demanding standards. Like what, I asked? We have no "proof" for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. What might constitute such "proof," I asked? Artifacts that showed that Nephites lived in meso-America? Yes, exactly, was her reply. Would you, if I could show you such an artifact--say, something in stone with Nephi's name on it, agree that the Book of Mormon is authentic history? No, she replied. That would only be a matter for further discussion. She could not think of anything that would convince her that there actually were Nephites.
Later, he elaborates on his desire to score rhetorical points:
Dr. Midgley wrote:I asked Sandra what was the core or crucial or fundamental historical element in her faith. She replied: "the resurrection of Jesus." Then I asked her what "proof" there was for the resurrection. Which artifact "proves" that Jesus was resurrected. She was silent. Then she began to say that the followers of Jesus believed that he was and some claimed to have actually seen the resurrected Jesus. But, I argued, the mere fact that people believed something does not make it true. After all, lots of Latter-day Saints believe things that she does not accept as true. At this point she was reduced to telling us about her positive "feelings" about Jesus and her negative "feelings" about Joseph Smith. She abandoned her talk about "proof" entirely.
Finally, he closes out his account his a jab at non-LDS Christianity:
Lou Midgley wrote:Sandra wanted to know if I consider Foster a Christian. I said that if he wanted to think of himself as a Christian, I had no objections. Though, of course, I think his version of Christianity is simply absurd. But not much more absurd than most liberal Christians and probably not more absurd than that held by other apostate Christians.
Obviously, Prof. Midgley's typically bristly personality is in full bloom here. On its face, his account sounds pretty simple: he showed up at the bookstore in order to engage in robust and decent-minded religious debate. But let's back up a moment.
On a separate part of the SHIELDS website, we learn that, in fact, Roper and Midlgey were *thrown out* of the bookstore by Sandra Tanner's husband, Jerald. In fact, the webmaster of SHIELDS (probably Stan Barker), posted this boastful summary:
On June 19, 1997 an interesting incident occurred at the Utah Lighthouse Ministry bookstore in Salt Lake City, Utah. According to the owners of this ministry, Sandra and Jerald Tanner, only two people had been thrown out of their store prior to this date. On that date the number doubled. Dr. Louis C. Midgley and a friend, who questioned Mrs. Tanner on some issues, were tossed from the store by Mr. Tanner, who came from the back room when he had had his fill of their challenges. We are not presenting the Tanners' side of the incident because to date they have not provided one
It is important to take note of the fact that Gerald Tanner was in some kind of "back room," and that, in essence, these two LDS men were ganging up on Sandra. In his "recollection" of the events, Midgley expresses what seems be a kind of mock surprise:
Prof. Midgley wrote:Dear Sandra:
I must admit that I was astonished when, on June 19th, your husband showed up and tossed me (and my friend) from your bookstore. If I said or did something that offended you, of course I apologize. But I am at a loss to figure out what I might have said to you that warranted our being tossed out of your bookstore--I thought that we were having a thoroughly civil conversation. As in each of my previous conversations with you, both on the phone and in your shop, I thought that we had been able to communicate and even disagree without being disagreeable. I do not recall either feeling or expressing hostility towards you in any of our conversations.
I think it is worth noting that he had apparently been pestering Sandra quite a bit, both "on the phone" and "in [her] shop." Evidently, this showing up with Matt Roper was the last straw. Later in the "recollection", he ironically mentions that he has been digging into finances---something apologists have been cringing at as of late:
Dr. Midgley wrote:In the past the issue that seemed to agitate you the most was my probing concerning the likelihood that George D. Smith's has financially assisted Utah Lighthouse Ministry. But even that portion of our previous conversations was entirely civil.
Now, does it seem right for apologists to get so bent out of shape when they are questioned about their finances, when good old Dr. Midgley had been doing precisely this (and quite persistently, apparently!) to S. Tanner?
In the past, discussions about this now-notorious incident have focused around Lou Midgley's white-hot temperment, and on the fact that two men were essentially confronting a lone woman in her place of business. No doubt, this seemed quite an aggressive and somewhat disturbing Mopologetic tactic. But, in all of this, something has long been overlooked.
Why was Matt Roper present?
As you will recall, Matt Roper is one of the few individuals who is paid to engage full-time in apologetics. So, what was he doing with Prof. Midgley on that fateful June day? Was he there as a kind of "hired muscle," or Mopologetic "button man"? Certainly, part of his purpose was to function as a witness. In case Midgley had managed to score a coup de grace, someone needed to be there to see it and offer a nod of confirmation. Or, if Midgley decided to warp his account, Roper, who is paid to do apologetics, would be there to go along with the story. At base, though, there can be no question that this incident provides a striking window into the operating tactics of LDS apologetics. In a sense, these folks seem to be operating according to some kind of clandestine mob rules whereby the gang-up mentality prevails. We can see evidence for this elsewhere, such as in the mysterious "Skinny-L" list which was used to facilitate an email "gang-up" on a Church critic.
Another revelation amidst all of this is the evident hierarchy. Clearly, Midgley was calling the shots here, and it is easy to see him, along with DCP, Hamblin, and perhaps John Tvedtness and others, as a kind of Mopologetic capo regime. These guys, operating on behalf of the Brethren (let's face it, there *is* something Don Corleone-esque about President Monson), and with the aid of "muscle men" like Matt Roper, are engaged in a subtle but aggressive war against critics. That they would use tactics such as threatening confrontations and harassing phone calls in genuinely frightening.
Many questions remain, of course, but the connection between Matt Roper---a full-time paid apologist---and this fateful incident, marks yet another important insight into the way LDS apologetics operates. Peel back the many layers, and what do we find? It seems that the Danites never really went away. They were just reborn in a new form.