Morgan Davis and the "Plot" to Destroy FARMS

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Louis "I wrote a Top Secret operations manual for the Army as a Private" Midgley > Dr. VelhoBurrinho 14 hours ago

VB keeps mentioning Latter-day Saint apologetics. Some wrongly believe that defending the faith is necessary, while others--for instance, everyone who posts on Dr. Shades board--don't think it is possible. Both are wrong.

Somewhere in the Book of Mormon we are told that "Fools mock, but they will mourn." which is what I more than suggested when I glossed Dostoevsky.

There is nothing strange about Latter-day Saints defending their faith. The Greek word apologia, which means to defend something, as one would in a court, by providing reasons--that is, evidence--supporting one's faith. Endowed Latter-day Saints make a solemn covenant to defend and build the Kingdom of God. And see all of D&C 123.

I have been asked by the Brethren to respond to violent critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. In one instance what I was asked to write was one of my most hard hitting essays. There is one harmless mistake about who edited what was called Paul Pry's Weekly Bulletin in that essay. Whoever published that rag was essentially the first one to blast away at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon beginning in August 1829.

Grant Palmer, while on probation for teaching heresy, began working on what became his dreadful An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which Signature Books published in 2002 immediately after he retired from what was then called CES. The fact is that in 1986 Palmer circulated his first draft of his book under the name Paul Pry Jr. He got caught for doing this, but not fired on the spot. Instead, he was allowed to visit the county jail as a kind of chaplain. He did some of that, but mostly worked on his book and played with his pigeons.

At the specific request of the one then in charge of what was then called CES, I wrote an essay entitled "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review 15/2 (2002): 365-410.This essay was reviewed by, among others, Elder Eyring. There were no objections to that essay, or the others on Grant Palmer's terrible book by Davis Bitton, James Allen, Mark Ashurst-McGee and Steve Harper, all of which were hard hitting and fully accurate. Elder Maxwell wanted FARMS to no longer allow Slam Dunks! And Elder Holland has recently more than merely mentioned that fact, has he not?

There are two who continue to be employed by the Maxwell Institute, one of whom was involved with the purge, and the other one was brought on later by Jerry Bradford to do PR work. Both of these, but for different reasons, strongly object to truthful and accurate efforts to defend the faith and the Saints. In one case it is because they do not like our tone, whatever that is, and in the other because he insists that one should never ever be critical of anyone's ideology who still has their name on the records of the Church of Jesus Christ, even when they clearly mock Jesus Christ.

Hence I wonder what VB means when he mentions what he calls "LDS apologetics." I am not accusing him of anything, but merely asking him, if in the case of Grant Palmer, if Bitton, Allen, Ashurst-McGee, Harper and I were not fully justified in what we wrote. Or was our response to John Dehlin warranted and appropriate.

[_Lemmie]

Good point. I’m still scratching my head over Grant Palmer being defined as a “violent critic”.

[_Jersey Girl]

You’re intentionally being thick to try to make a point. I am done with the insincere games message board posters play. I will no longer be pressing the link to see your posts (as I still have you on ignore).

If anyone appears to be playing games on this board, it's you. Contrary to what you believe about your speaking "powerfully" you come off as playing cat and mouse games with people about your alleged evidences. Attributing your postings here as directed to historians while describing this message board as basically a hole in the wall, makes you indeed appear delusional. Do you really think "historians" are going to peruse obscure message boards for ambiguous hints and clues in your posts? Do you really think you are that important?

While you may not like or appreciate the way Lemmie has characterized you with regard to narcissism, I would encourage you to re-read the post you made to RI while exercising even a miniscule amount of self awareness and see how grandiose that post makes you look in the mind of the reader.

When I consider how coy and alternately dismissive your post to RI comes off one can only imagine what the nature of your interactions with Dehlin might have been and I can tell you--it's not a good look for a self described powerful woman who knows her own mind.

Self awareness. It's a thing, rosebud.

[_Dr Moore]

SNIP

O.M.G.

[_Kishkumen]

The best defense of a faith is a compelling elucidation of it, not attacking people. I find it baffling that Dr. Midgley thinks otherwise. I have never understood the need of Mopologists to attack people in lieu of explicating the beauties of their religion. Failing that, they might just focus on refuting critics’ arguments. But the belittling of those with whom they disagree is the stuff of the schoolyard bully and not at all consistent with faith in Christ.

[_Dr. Shades]

speaking of clues, Doctor Shades, did you see this?

I have been asked by the Brethren to respond to violent critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. [SNIP!] At the specific request of the one then in charge of what was then called CES, I wrote an essay entitled "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review 15/2 (2002): 365-410.

No, I didn't see that, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Doctor Scratch was the first one to speculate, years ago, that the Brethren themselves commissioned hit pieces on troublesome critics and outspoken members, but this was stridently denied by the Mopologists. Thanks to Doctor Scratch's most reliable informant (known to the world as "Louis Midgley"), however, it turns out that he (Doctor Scratch) was 100% correct, as he pretty much always is.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have been asked by the Brethren to respond to violent critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. [SNIP!] At the specific request of the one then in charge of what was then called CES, I wrote an essay entitled "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review 15/2 (2002): 365-410.

No, I didn't see that, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Doctor Scratch was the first one to speculate, years ago, that the Brethren themselves commissioned hit pieces on troublesome critics and outspoken members, but this was stridently denied by the Mopologists. Thanks to Doctor Scratch's most reliable informant (known to the world as "Louis Midgley"), however, it turns out that he (Doctor Scratch) was 100% correct, as he pretty much always is.

Well, to be fair: Midgley could be lying or "posturing."

[_Dr. Shades]

Well, to be fair: Midgley could be lying or "posturing."

Ha ha; now you're just being modest.

So tell us, Doctor Scratch: Do you ever get sick and tired of being right all the time?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, to be fair: Midgley could be lying or "posturing."

Ha ha; now you're just being modest.

So tell us, Doctor Scratch: Do you ever get sick and tired of being right all the time?

No, I admit that's it's always gratifying.

[_Kishkumen]

The fact that Doctor Scratch turned out to have been reliably and accurately informed of the role of LDS leaders in attack apologetics is really quite disappointing. This means that behind every defaming publication in the FROB there may well have been, and probably was, a GA or group of leaders, approvingly initiating the dismal enterprise. Imagine attacking the members of your own church through proxies and then having the proxies deny your role in the attacks!

Whether Midgley’s words are accurate or not, he has done a lot of damage here. I think this information is generally accurate. Leaders of the LDS Church did want to attack their internal critics without sullying their own hands. They enlisted the Mopologists to do it. For all we know, it was intended by President Hinckley to add the imprimatur of BYU to this ghoulish effort. I hope not, but it now seems to be within the realm of possibility.

In a time of deeply depressing news, I am learning to be less shocked, and yet Midgley’s revelations are truly disheartening to me.