Dr. Shades wrote: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.
This is completely consistent with the Lou Midgely who I know. He revels in his rep as a 'bulldog' and can't resist lashing out at so-called "enemies of the Church." Remember, this is the same guy who drove up to Salt Lake City for the sole purpose of heckling Grant Palmer at a book-signing. He's an embarrassment to any church that claims to follow Christ.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote: He's an embarrassment to any church that claims to follow Christ.
That statement is true. It seems to me like the people who followed Christ were the ones who were getting heckled and harassed, not the other way around. It's embarrassing when LDS members engage in this behavior towards a non-LDS; it's especially embarrassing when it's prominent LDS members who know better. Surely actually living one's religion would stop someone from even thinking of participating in this sort of activity.
harmony wrote:When was the most recent activity like this?
Midgely's heckling of Palmer at the book-signing was reported by Sunstone in December 2002 (p. 76), so it was shortly before then.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
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.
What an odd argument to make from someone who claims to also be a Christian..
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.
What an odd argument to make from someone who claims to also be a Christian..
No it is not odd at all. EV Christian attacks LDS faith using some sort of critical method. EV Critic does not scrutinize their own faith by the same method. Honesty requires the EV critic should do so. If they have and still have faith great. If not then their attacks againt the LDS Church or any other faith are hallow. No religion can be proven critically. The supernatural claims of religions, Christianity included have not yet been proven by empirical data. Midgely's comments are totally appropriate
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.
What an odd argument to make from someone who claims to also be a Christian..
No it is not odd at all. EV Christian attacks LDS faith using some sort of critical method. EV Critic does not scrutinize their own faith by the same method. Honesty requires the EV critic should do so. If they have and still have faith great. If not then their attacks againt the LDS Church or any other faith are hallow. No religion can be proven critically. The supernatural claims of religions, Christianity included have not yet been proven by empirical data. Midgely's comments are totally appropriate
That argument only works if Mormonism is a different faith than Christianity. Mormonism which lays claim to also being a Christian faith is stuck with all the problems that come with the origins and theology of Christianity plus all the Joseph Smith B***SH**. Migley's argument only shoots the other foot.
Why spend so much time on this one woman? Why call her? What is she doing that would cause the apologists to feel the need to contact her on regular occasions? What does the other guy say about the event?
"HOW DARE YOU KEEP US WAITING!!!!! I demand you post right this very instant or I'll... I'll... I'll hold my breath until I slump over and bang my head against the keyboard resulting in me posting something along the lines of "SR Wphgohbrfg76hou7wbn.xdf87e4iubnaelghe45auhnea4iunh eb9uih t4e9h eibn z"! "-- Angus McAwesome (Jul 21/08 11:51 pm)
moksha wrote:One only has to read his review of Grant Palmer (it was more about Brother Palmer and less about his book) to understand the modus operandi of Professor Midgley.
Yes, these guys are a real discredit to their religion when they behave like this, and I have no trouble believing that Roper, Midgley, and "X" went out specifically to harass Sandra Tanner. This kind of junior high behavior really gets these guys' rocks off. If the leaders of the LDS Church got wise on this, they would put a stop to these shenanigans. Apologists who get out of hand in this way would face the scrutiny of their ecclesiastical leaders for their behavior in these matters.
Would they, though? See, I'm not convinced that the Brethren and/or local ecclesiastical leaders would do anything. For all we know, the Brethren are aware that this stuff goes on, and they don't care. There is a long history of LDS defenders behaving very badly, with no disciplining of them whatsoever.
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."