Lou Midgley: An LDS "Capo"?

[_Moniker]

I don't usually get too interested in these threads, yet, I have to admit that it makes me uneasy that a few men would get into a group and confront a man or woman in their place of business. Why not make an appointment to discuss issues? Meet at a neutral place where all involved can feel at ease?

[_karl61]

I think Mrs Tanner needs to keep one of these under the counter:

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't usually get too interested in these threads, yet, I have to admit that it makes me uneasy that a few men would get into a group and confront a man or woman in their place of business. Why not make an appointment to discuss issues? Meet at a neutral place where all involved can feel at ease?

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly, Moniker. What's worse is that this goes far, far deeper than this one confrontation. There is a whole network of apologists who are united in their effort to intimidate, belittle, frighten, and attack any and all critics. In fact, there is a whole archive devoted to laughing at the apologists' assaults on various LDS critics:

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/archive.htm

A number of these include private email correspondence which DCP passed along to Mr. Novak. Elsewhere, Novak cracks jokes about people's health problems, and makes light of peoples deaths. A more tasteless site there cannot be.

You know, in one sense, I wonder if the Church brought the Maxwell Institute into BYU in order to try and get rid of this stuff.

[_Gadianton]

What I find interesting as I've done a few web searches on this, is that there is so much surprise that Jerald became protective of his wife and threw out the disruptive "customers".

The trip to the bookstore was orchestrated by three individuals, two of which are known for fiery tempers and combative behavior, and who are known to immediately disseminate their campaigns of revenge and practical jokes to the "l-skinny" list and leak to Shields and all to get a horse-laugh from their buddies. I think Jerald had been generous to allow them in at all. Would any of you let three argumentative and men who make bold, "I am laughing ato you" statements on the web confront your wife alone with camera and notepads, looking to intimidate her and trap her in her words?

And think about it, could her words in such a situation even mean anything? If the apologists are willing to believe that a prophet of God with a lifetime of PR experience behind him could become confused with a line of questioning from one individual and say, "I don't know that we teach that", what kind of stock can they put in the responses of an older woman cornered by three probing intruders looking to get her mistakes down in black and white so that they can immediately, the next day, blast them all over the internet? Isn't it possible that given such a situation, she might not be able to answer at her best?

But certainly, her husband acted appropriatly by putting an end to an escalating situations.

[_solomarineris]

Above: Matt Roper and Dr. Louis Midgley: Modern-day Danites?

Sorry Schratch, but Jason got a point here.
#1-First of all the picture of Midgley & Roper hardly seem to come across after a confrontational, unpleasant encounter.
#2- Sandra Tanner will remain a superb researcher in LDS history, but one cannot claim the same accolades what she believes in Christianity.
#3- Her belief in traditional Christianity should face the same scrutinity.... As it does she has no answer for them;

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.

She leads a farcical life, as platonic as any faithful LDS.
None of them can prove ANYTHING worthwhile, which can be tested or observed.

But I feel sorry for the apologetic people, their life is worse than pimps.
I'd rather work at seven eleven.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi folks,

Mister Scratch and I had the following exchange via private message. He requested that I post it here, so here it is, minus the opening and closing salutations.

MISTER SCRATCH WROTE TO ME:

I am about to post a thread dealing with a classic incident: Lou Midgley's "harassment" of Sandra Tanner. That said, I was told that you had a kind of "inside scoop" on this whole incident---I.e., that you may have spoken with Mrs. Tanner, or something like that. Anyways, if you have any details, I'd love to hear them.

I RESPONDED TO MISTER SCRATCH:

Oh yes indeed! I'm glad you asked.

Anyway, the Tanners used to run a monthly meeting of sorts in the gathering-area (or whatever you call it) on the second floor of their bookstore. They would focus on some aspect of LDS doctrine, practice, or history. Often they would have a guest speaker--William Bagley was there once--other times Sandra would speak.

At any rate, for a time I made it a point to attend each of these. Jerald and Sandra themselves were in attendance too most of the time. Since I had both of them there one time, I decided to get them both aside and ask them both, point-blank, for their side of the story, since I had only heard Louis Midgley's version.

After I brought the subject up, they sort of laughed about it. Jerald himself, who is noteworthy for being a man of very few words (letting Sandra be the public face of the ministry), told me the story:

He said that Louis being ejected from their bookstore had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Louis winning an argument with Sandra. Jerald said that he was in the back room and could hear the entire exchange between them. He then said that Louis was being boistrous and disrespectful to his wife. After having all he could stand, he finally got tired of hearing his wife being disrespected, so he emerged from the back room and calmly asked Louis to leave. THAT WAS IT. Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the argument itself.

Sandra then piped in and told me that Louis had even returned to their bookstore once or twice afterward (so it obviously wasn't a lifetime ban or anything). Once he brought a guest and was showing him around. He was still quite disrespectful--although not to Sandra herself--saying things like AND I QUOTE--"You're still selling books by that queer?"

So, there you have it. Good luck with your post on this.

[_Mister Scratch]

What I find interesting as I've done a few web searches on this, is that there is so much surprise that Jerald became protective of his wife and threw out the disruptive "customers".

The notion that these guys, these modern-day "Danites" were "customers" in any sense of the word is utterly absurd. They were there to be disruptive and belligerent, plain and simple.

That said, I noticed on Mr. Novak's website that he lists three other individuals as possible "capos" in the Mopologetic hierarchy:

1) Daniel C. Peterson
2) William Hamblin
3) Louis Midgley

So, I guess these are the guys who are, in effect, "running the show." They are the ones who get "paid," in a sense, but they are obviously being employed in other ways so that the Brethren can circumvent any accusations of there being a fully-financed corps of professional apologists. Beneath them (ironically enough) I think we would have to include those folks who *are* actually paid full-time to do apologetics, but who nonetheless, for various reasons, tend to fly under the radar. People at this level of the hierarchy would include, I believe:

1) Matt Roper
2) John Tvedtnes


Now, these are the "official" (and I hesitate to use that descriptor, as I think that this particular adjective has been rendered almost useless by the endless layers of LDS subterfuge and misdirection) apologists. These are the guys who, for better or for worse, have been given (perhaps via a laying on of hands) the responsibility of defending the Church. Of course, there are further, as-of-yet unexplored nuances to this, such as the "fundraiser," and how s/he fits into the puzzle.

Really, it seems the intrigue has no bounds. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be willing to pay "quite a wad of cash" to learn who all is on the "l-skinny" listserve. Probably the apologists have taken a kind of LDS "omerta" on it, however.

[_Mister Scratch]

He said that Louis being ejected from their bookstore had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Louis winning an argument with Sandra. Jerald said that he was in the back room and could hear the entire exchange between them. He then said that Louis was being boistrous and disrespectful to his wife. After having all he could stand, he finally got tired of hearing his wife being disrespected, so he emerged from the back room and calmly asked Louis to leave. THAT WAS IT. Again, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the argument itself.

Sandra then piped in and told me that Louis had even returned to their bookstore once or twice afterward (so it obviously wasn't a lifetime ban or anything). Once he brought a guest and was showing him around. He was still quite disrespectful--although not to Sandra herself--saying things like AND I QUOTE--"You're still selling books by that queer?"

So, there you have it. Good luck with your post on this.

Thank you very much for posting this, Dr. Shades. This is quite revelatory. I think a few points are worthy of further exploration / discussion:

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?
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.
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.

Anyways, all of this is very interesting.

[Guest]

Solaramis,

I agree that born again Christianity in the final analysis is as baseless as Mormonism. As a practice, I personally find it even more annoying. However, whatever Ms. Tanner's faults as an intellectual may be, in no way give license to three big bullies muscling her around in her shop all to catch her in contradictions and "get it all on tape" so they can hop online and score a cheapshot the next day.
This incident speaks very badly of apologetic tactics.

[_Jason Bourne]

That may be so, but bear in mind that these guys are doing these things under the aegis of the LDS Church. And they are going about it in a very sneaky, Cosa Nostra-esque way.

Only in your over active imaginative mind.

It is clear they meant to harass.

Really? Prove it. No spin here bud. Prove it.

by the way: I have discovered who the mysterious "3rd Man" was in this whole affair (and the likely operator of the camera that snapped that photo): Gary Novak. Tell me, does this seem like the sort of chap who'd stop into the Tanner's bookstore merely to "browse the wares"?:

If you are humor-impaired, leave immediately. This is not for the faint-of-heart, the thin-skinned, or especially humorless anti-Mormons. If you are a humorless anti-Mormon, this site is intended to mock you—I am laughing at you.

Mysterious again. Thump thump thump, here comes the black helicopters.

And this:
I had some fun visiting Sandra Tanner's bookstore. I let her know about the problems with her website. But she clearly did not have a good idea of what is going on there. And I don't think she understood exactly what a secured server is. In any case I tried to explain that Utah Lighthouse Ministries may be setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

yes so what? Again, if you set yourself up as a critic prepare to be challenged. If you are open for business to sell books critical of another's faith don't be surprised if someone stops in and wants to challenge you. My guess is that it was not the first or last time some LDS, on their own accord, did this.

Furthermore, based on these comments, it is obvious that they were not there to purchase books. They were there to pick a fight, and to try and get themselves thrown out so that they could brag about

I don't think they were there to purchase books. I am sure they went there to debate. So what? This reveals some subterfuge or plot by the LDS Church to send their minions out to pick on poor little Sandra?

"Woosy"? Do you mean "wussy"?

Yes wussy.

In any case, as has already been stated, Midgley & et. al. had been by a number of times, and he had been calling here on the telephone, etc. It seems to me that the Tanners were more than patient.

Once again you know this exactly how?

Anyways, you are missing the larger picture, Jason.

No, I am not. You in your typical hyperbole over the top fashion are making much out of nothing.

What we have here is some very disquieting proof of the range and extent of LDS apologetics.

Oh you bet. Two guys out to argue with an LDS critic on an any day afternoon. BFD.

If you are a critic, you should be advised that these men will hunt you down, and will seek to badger and confront you in your place of business.

And now you prove my point.

You really are over the top.

And I am sure they will be packing a Colt 45 and just hoping to say "Go ahead....make my day."