Lou Midgley: An LDS "Capo"?

[_aussieguy55]

I finally see the man I had an email altercation with. It was a rather sarcastic email, talking about some association I had with Wesley Walters. He even thought I might have been someone with whom he had an altercation with off all places in some Australian bookshop. I find in my experience its better to be soft spoken and reasonable with people. I must try and find that email.

[_Mister Scratch]

I finally see the man I had an email altercation with. It was a rather sarcastic email, talking about some association I had with Wesley Walters. He even thought I might have been someone with whom he had an altercation with off all places in some Australian bookshop. I find in my experience its better to be soft spoken and reasonable with people. I must try and find that email.

Yes, if you find it, I can't see much unethical in you posting it. Prof. Midgley lives to do such things to critics. People should be very, very wary about exchanging *any* email with him, since he will then later use it either to laugh at you on SHIELDS, or he will make threats about posting it in order to prove you are a "liar." He did this recently during the Bachman/Keyes Fiasco.

[_Jason Bourne]

We have Tanner's word again Midgely who says he was civil.

Remember, Midgley's version of "civil" and normal people's version of "civil" are two totally different things.

Why should I remember that? Why do you say that? What we have is your second hand account that Midgley was not civil and his first hand account that he was.

But even if he wasn't so what? This certainly does not validate Scratch's black helicopter of LDS apologetics theory he so desperately wants to demonstrate.

[_Jason Bourne]

John H. from Times and Seasons writes back in 2004

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=1605,

I think Aaron’s characterization of Midgley in post 7 is so spot on it’s scary. I obviously don’t always agree with Dan Peterson, but it’s clear he’s brilliant, thoughtful, and well…normal. I don’t think the latter can apply to Midgley.

Let’s review, shall we?

1) Midgley shows up at a candlelight vigil for Lynne Whitesides, berating people, calling them children of Satan, and putting some in tears. I’m not an uncritical fan of the so-called September Six, but this is just bizarre.

2) Midgley attends the 25th anniversary of Signature Books at the University of Utah, talking loudly during the presentations, getting many glares and hushes from others. After the event he goes over to a table displaying Signature’s titles and loudly proclaims, “pathetic!”

3) While researching on (guess what?) Fawn Brodie at the University of Utah archives, Midgley repeatedly yells out phrases like, “I don’t believe it!” and “My goodness!” to no one in particular, scaring the crap out of the other patrons who think he’s a crazy man.

4) Midgley quizzes Grant Palmer during Palmer’s presentation of his book at Sam Weller’s, but doesn’t address the topics in the book. Instead, Midgley asks why Palmer wasn’t well liked on his mission to New Zealand, and questions Palmer’s faithfulness based on his popularity among the Maori.

5) Midgley calls up my friend’s 70 year-old mother (who, until I get his permission, will remain anonymous) and hounds her and berates her about her son’s involvement with Signature Books. He keeps harrassing her for information so he can get some dirt on her son.

And on and on. Midley probably holds the record for being banned from the most Mormon e-lists and groups. He has a well-known reputation for showing up at places he’s not welcome for the sole purpose of harrassing those in attendance.

Does this change the charges in his article? Not necessarily, but since FARMS is such a big fan of telling us about the authors of the books they review, it only seems fair if it’s a two-way st

Wow! I think Jason Bourne is out of his league here defending Midgley's temper. That whole blog entry is worth reading. Let's keep in mind that "Times and Seasons" is itself an apologetic related blog (there are defenses of Midgley there too), but it is very clear that many outside of clear-cut critics are suspicious of Midgley's ways.

The Tanner's are not the only victims of his verbal abuse.

Who is Aaron and why should I trust him?

Anyway, so assume that I concede that Midgley may be an obnoxious prig. That proves only that this particular person who is a hobby apologists behaves badly at times. Is he on the church payroll for apologetics's? Is the Church behind this "mysterious and dubious" activity that Scratch says is demonstrated by Midgley's visit to the Tanners? Is it even demonstrated by the other anecdotes shared here. Hardly.

[_Gadianton]

Jason,

You're going to need to slow down. First of all, it wasn't just Migdley, it was Migdley, Novak, and Roper who harrassed Ms. Tanner that day. Novak and Migdley both have reputations for verbal confrontation. Roper doesn't appear to have this same trigger-happy temperment, but he's not a small guy and his presence up'd the intimidation factor and lent confidence to the others who might have been concerned about a contigency plan in case the confrontation got violent. I'm not sure Migdley could have "taken" Sandra on his own, let alone Jerald.

So quit trying to say this incident demonstrated poor actions by only one man, it was three, three who are very important in the apologist community. As to the connection to the church in general, you might have missed Scratch saying,

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

[_Jason Bourne]

So quit trying to say this incident demonstrated poor actions by only one man, it was three, three who are very important in the apologist community. As to the connection to the church in general, you might have missed Scratch saying,

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

[/quote]

And Scratch also said this:

Another revelation amidst all of this is the evident hierarchy. Clearly, Midgley was calling the shots here, and it is easy to see him, along with DCP, Hamblin, and perhaps John Tvedtness and others, as a kind of Mopologetic capo regime. These guys, operating on behalf of the Brethren (let's face it, there *is* something Don Corleone-esque about President Monson), and with the aid of "muscle men" like Matt Roper, are engaged in a subtle but aggressive war against critics. That they would use tactics such as threatening confrontations and harassing phone calls in genuinely frightening.

Many questions remain, of course, but the connection between Matt Roper---a full-time paid apologist---and this fateful incident, marks yet another important insight into the way LDS apologetics operates. Peel back the many layers, and what do we find? It seems that the Danites never really went away. They were just reborn in a new form.

Give me a friggin break.

[_Mister Scratch]

Anyway, so assume that I concede that Midgley may be an obnoxious prig. That proves only that this particular person who is a hobby apologists behaves badly at times.

It is more complicated than that, Jason. 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. 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." 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.

Is he on the church payroll for apologetics's?

Probably. Certainly, Matt Roper is. And he was one of the "accomplices" present during this verbal assault on Sandra Tanner.

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. Certainly, the Brethren have given their nod of approval for apologetics. 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.

Is it even demonstrated by the other anecdotes shared here. Hardly.

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.

[Guest]

Absolutely, Scratch. Per the powerpoint model I posted, no one should ever expect to find an easy paper trail back to the brethren. Plausible deniability has carefully been built in at every step. The convenient disappearance of the 2nd watson letter and the lack of a reprint is a perfect example. Everyone in Mormonism is happy; conservative Mormons don't have to rethink their entire religion, and ultra-liberals/apologists will believe they've been given the nod to invent Mormon doctrine how they like. And the critics are left without a target. It's brilliant. There is most definitely a conspiricy in the works, but it's not like the strawman conspiricies apologists burn down. There will be no snapshots of helicopter license plates that trace back to Monson himself. That kind of conspiricy simply wouldn't work very well.

[_moksha]

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.

The review can be found on the FAIR website. I felt very ill at ease when I read it. Sort of like a treatise in unethical reviewing practices. Did Palmer really deserve to be so intently scrutinized to find the dirt on him? If so, what other academic journal has ever engaged in such a practice? This seems more fitting for Scientologists than Mormons.

[_Gadianton]

Wow Moksha, I started reading that, but then I found myself counting, 1, 2, 3, .. 25 times he uses the term "anti-Mormon" in that article.