Louis Midgley wrote:I have discovered that some Protestant preachers, especially those involved in or influenced by the countercult movement, have a proclivity for denigrating the faith of the Saints; they operate in a confrontational, attack mode.
Like he did with Sandra Tanner?
Lou is also the guy who traveled from Provo to SLC to attend a Grant Palmer "Insider" book-signing in order to heckle him. What a sweetheart.
"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)
Midgley wrote:In some of these venues, diseases of the soul are nourished and spread, rather than assistance being provided to aid in the recovery of sometimes severely spoiled souls.
This line is genius, man. Genius. Oh my diseased, severely spoiled soul.
This narrative is fascinating in the way it describes the gestation and birth of a career Mopologist. Midgley seems to have found his calling in the role of the savagely vicious, revenge-fueled apologist. And, as he discovered, there is always a fail-safe escape hatch: the bearing of the testimony---something which is often used as a last-ditch tactic by Mopologists.
Midgley deserves a biography, full of delicious gossip, juicy details, and revealing anecdotes. He's always had a debater'smentality. Here he writes about his obsession with anti-Mormon literature:
[M]y interest in this [anti-Mormon] literature goes deeper than a mild curiosity for the odd leaflet, tract, or book that happens to come along. One might even say that I am hooked on the stuff. I have even corresponded with some of those "antimormonoids." My wife warns me about the utter futility of such behavior. And she is not mollified by my descriptions of the amusing side of anti-Mormon literature. Responding to her remonstrances and entreaties, I occasionally resolve to leave the stuff alone. But then a newsletter will arrive in the mail or a rumor will surface and I will begin to rationalize: what harm can come from having a look at some unsavory details about the latest unpleasant quarrel among the antimormonoids, or from glancing through a tract, or writing just one more letter? And then, like one who cannot pass the swinging doors of a bar, I am back into it again.
Dr Midgley wrote:[M]y interest in this [anti-Mormon] literature goes deeper than a mild curiosity for the odd leaflet, tract, or book that happens to come along. One might even say that I am hooked on the stuff. I have even corresponded with some of those "antimormonoids." My wife warns me about the utter futility of such behavior. And she is not mollified by my descriptions of the amusing side of anti-Mormon literature. Responding to her remonstrances and entreaties, I occasionally resolve to leave the stuff alone. But then a newsletter will arrive in the mail or a rumor will surface and I will begin to rationalize: what harm can come from having a look at some unsavory details about the latest unpleasant quarrel among the antimormonoids, or from glancing through a tract, or writing just one more letter? And then, like one who cannot pass the swinging doors of a bar, I am back into it again.
Sounds like a porn addiction to me.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Agreed. Midgley seems to really relish tearing the "antimormonoids" down. Maybe the addiction, born of his early defeat on his mission, is sort of a long-playing revenge fantasy.
As I said in another thread, I don't really know what motivates the angry apologists, but Midgley's article gives a little insight. Whatever it is, the underlying anger and contempt are not exactly things to be proud of.
Agreed. Midgley seems to really relish tearing the "antimormonoids" down. Maybe the addiction, born of his early defeat on his mission, is sort of a long-playing revenge fantasy.
As I said in another thread, I don't really know what motivates the angry apologists, but Midgley's article gives a little insight. Whatever it is, the underlying anger and contempt are not exactly things to be proud of.
I agree with your assessment on motivation. I get ex-Mormon motivation. They are trying to resolve a part of their lives and justify their decision--decisions which often have egregious ongoing ramifications. But the apologists, why do they care? They are so quick to point out that the arguments against their religion are silly and wholy without merit why do they spend so much time? It certainly isn't to bring more people to the Church because there are much more effect means of doing that.
John Larsen wrote: I agree with your assessment on motivation. I get ex-Mormon motivation. They are trying to resolve a part of their lives and justify their decision--decisions which often have egregious ongoing ramifications. But the apologists, why do they care? They are so quick to point out that the arguments against their religion are silly and wholy without merit why do they spend so much time? It certainly isn't to bring more people to the Church because there are much more effect means of doing that.
I believe it stems from a number of things---e.g., a general LDS sense of both entitlement, and of "persecution." In my experience, most LDS have a sense---even if only faintly---that they and the Church are under assault. (Consider some of BKP's remarks in his infamous "Mantle" talk.) This feeling seems to be especially acute in Mopologists like Midgley, and increasingly, I sense that their mission experience has something to do with it. Most of them have stories about "bashing" (indeed, most missionaries in general have these kinds of stories), but for Mopologists like Lou Midgley, these stories resonate at a very deep, primal (or primordial?) level.
