It is more complicated than that, Jason.
No not really.
You see, Midgley is one of the key members of the "l-skinny" listserve group. This listserve functions as a kind of gossip site and "staging grounds" for the apologists' various attacks and assaults on critics.
I think I know more about "l-skinny" listserve group than you do and its purposes is not as as staging ground for apologists to coordinate "attacks."
Further, given Midgley's remarks on SHIELDS, it seems pretty obvious that he went to confront S. Tanner with subsequent boasting and chest-beating in mind. In other words, he wasn't just doing this for "himself."
Pure conjecture.
Rather, he was acting as a representative of a group. It's sort of like that recent fiasco involving missionary desecration of a religious site.
Sure, you can say, "Aw, this was just a couple of kids messing around." Equally, you could say, "These young men are representatives of the LDS Church, and their behavior reflects badly on Mormonism writ-large." Likewise, Midgley is a very important representative of the corps of LDS apologists.
There closest thing there is to a coordination of apologetic efforts for the Church could be FARMS. That is it. Most are just hobby aplogists in Old Testament for whatever reason they are in it.
Is he on the church payroll for apologetics's?
Probably.
Proof please?
Certainly, Matt Roper is. And he was one of the "accomplices" present during this verbal assault on Sandra Tanner.
Roper works for FARMS. But the fact that he was with Midgley has nothing to do necessarily with FARMS any more than had I joined Midgley would it relate to my employer.
Is the Church behind this "mysterious and dubious" activity that Scratch says is demonstrated by Midgley's visit to the Tanners?
Again, it's tough to say
No it is not tough to say. It is tough to say the Church was behind it or even that this was some coordinated effort by any apologetic group to harrass poor Sandra Tanner.
Certainly, the Brethren have given their nod of approval for apologetics.
So?
On the other hand, in order to avoid accountability, they have (seemingly) left the Mopologists to their own devices. So, if the Brethren are saying, "Yes, we support apologetics. You guys are great, keep up the good work. Here, you can use one of the Church's professional 'fundraisers' to help supplement the money you've raised. Carry on!" and then one or more of the apologists proceeds to engage in rank and unethical behavior w/ zero scolding from the Brethren.... Is it therefore fair to conclude that "the Church" is "behind" everything? Well.... Sort of. I would say that there is as much evidence to support my conclusions as there is to conclude that "the Church" was "behind" MMM. Obviously, the Brethren approve of apologetics, even if they aren't fully aware of the many devils in the details. But, if you are in charge of a company and your underlings are engaging in nasty and unsavory activities, you, being the Boss, still bear some of the responsibility. This is doubly so in a highly stratified and hierarchical organization such as the LDS Church.
You have no evidence Scratch. All you have it your overly active imagination and your prociliithy tyo conclude the worst on the scantiest of anecdotal stories and activities. You connect dots where there are no dotes in order to further your warped agenda. It is really as simple as that. You do this often. Your pattern is obvious.
Again, it is not my contention that one or more of the Brethren contacted Prof. Midgley and said, "Hey, Bro. Lou---we would like you to go down to the UTLM and harass Sandra Tanner. Make her look bad. Show how she's a hypocrite. Oh, and be sure you take along a couple of witnesses so that we have verification. And, be sure to fill out a report with the SCMC." I don't think that's what happened. OTOH, I do think that, either explicitly or implicitly, Midgley and other apologists have been given "the go ahead" by the Brethren to do whatever it is they choose to do.
And I think you are pretty full of the brown stuff.