Midgley Confesses to Attempting to Link Dehlin to a Death

[_palerobber]

Leads one to wonder how much involvement Midgley had in the original hit piece? How much information did Midgley feed Smith? Perhaps Midgley attempted to push Smith into including the death accusation in the hit piece? Perhaps Midgley had much more input on the hit piece? Perhaps Greg Smith was not writing the hit piece in a vacuum? I am beginning to believe the hit piece may have been a bigger group project than communicated to the public. Is Greg Smith just the fall guy? Did the OMIDs throw Smith a bone? Did the OMIDs use Smith? As seen above (my second post in this thread) they are already attempting to wipe their hands clean of Smith.

i have been wondering about this too, but being late to the party i don't know how to read certain things.

take for example that crap from Midgely's notes about Dehlin using his seminary calling to "corrupt the youth of Athens."

was this.....
A. material Midgely learned from the hit piece
B. material Midgely contributed to the hit piece
C. an old smear Midgely and/or others have made publicly in the past
D. something Dehlin himself had discussed publicly and which Midgely was only twisting around

anyone know?

[_Tom]

take for example that crap from Midgely's notes about Dehlin using his seminary calling to "corrupt the youth of Athens."

was this.....
A. material Midgely learned from the hit piece
B. material Midgely contributed to the hit piece
C. an old smear Midgely and/or others have made publicly in the past
D. something Dehlin himself had discussed publicly and which Midgely was only twisting around

anyone know?

Perhaps he's listened to part 2 of this podcast series (about 12:30 to 17:00).

[_Equality]

Midgley and The Vile One are having fun straining at the gnat of whether Dehlin tried to quash the piece before or after Midgley assaulted him at the UVU conference. Why it matters is anyone's guess, but that's what they are focused on. Oh, and Kishkumen's Javert-like obsession with The Vile One:

Kishkumen is driven, to an extent that I've only recently begun to realize, by deep, consuming, personal hatred for several people, and it makes him (among other things) pathetically gullible. He eats up Scratch's nonsense with a voracious and uncritical appetite, presumably because the nonsense confirms his hatreds. But it leaves him ravenous for still more, and on it goes.

It's too bad. I think he's a bright fellow, but he's been grievously warped by the environment he's chosen for himself.

And, for that matter, while I've marveled at Scratch's -- my Malevolent Stalker's -- ability to keep this going for at least six years now, Kishkumen has been trotting along faithfully at Scratch's side for that entire time. Occasionally wandering off the path, but almost always very quickly coming back obediently to heel.

Scratch and lostindc and the gang have been in overdrive for the past few days, adding whole new volumes to the demonology they've crafted. It's truly a thing of wonder.

Well, perhaps I'm being too hasty when I read personal dislike into Kishkumen's language about us. Here's a sampling of it -- I'm leaving some out, and have culled it from only a single thread -- from within just the past twenty-four hours:

He's described Professor Midgley as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He's compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

I think that, deep down, he really both likes and respects us, and just wants us to be more gentle in our rhetoric. Don't you?

And, trust me, Kishkumen's pal Scratch and some of the others there are dishing up pure demonizing fiction, complete with mythical pending Church disciplinary councils and insubordination to the leaders of the Church and "inquisitions" and . . . It's unutterably bizarre. But the folks over there seem to be a gullible bunch.

I'm not a fan of harsh language and judgment, either. But, after six years and perhaps even more of such vilification by Scratch and his sidekick Kishkumen and an ever-changing if small cast of extras -- and it's literal vilification, being described as, among many other things, "vile" -- I don't think I'm being particularly rough or hasty in expressing my lack of enthusiasm for this sort of stuff.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59880-john-dehlin-and-faith-reconstruction/page__st__180

[_palerobber]

take for example that crap from Midgely's notes about Dehlin using his seminary calling to "corrupt the youth of Athens."

was this.....
A. material Midgely learned from the hit piece
B. material Midgely contributed to the hit piece
C. an old smear Midgely and/or others have made publicly in the past
D. something Dehlin himself had discussed publicly and which Midgely was only twisting around

anyone know?

Perhaps he's listened to part 2 of this podcast series (about 12:30 to 17:00).

so the answer is D, thanks.

but is the answer also A, B, or C? ... in other words, is this an old criticism of Dehlin, or something Midgely discovered from recent "research" into Dehlin's (quite vast) public record of podcasts, appearances, and online posts?

[_CaliforniaKid]

With Dehlin's recent podcast explaining that he's a believer again and he is going to rely on his emotions and testimony of the Church despite all his intellectual issues with it, I'm kind of shocked that the apologists are still harping on this. Do they not realize that, had the hit piece been published, Dehlin's return to faith probably would not have taken place? I strongly suspect they would have irrevocably alienated him from the LDS community. Then again, maybe they see his return as just another step in his nefarious plan to defraud the membership.

[_Darth J]

Midgley and The Vile One are having fun straining at the gnat of whether Dehlin tried to quash the piece before or after Midgley assaulted him at the UVU conference. Why it matters is anyone's guess, but that's what they are focused on. Oh, and Kishkumen's Javert-like obsession with The Vile One:

Kishkumen is driven, to an extent that I've only recently begun to realize, by deep, consuming, personal hatred for several people, and it makes him (among other things) pathetically gullible. He eats up Scratch's nonsense with a voracious and uncritical appetite, presumably because the nonsense confirms his hatreds. But it leaves him ravenous for still more, and on it goes.

It's too bad. I think he's a bright fellow, but he's been grievously warped by the environment he's chosen for himself.

And, for that matter, while I've marveled at Scratch's -- my Malevolent Stalker's -- ability to keep this going for at least six years now, Kishkumen has been trotting along faithfully at Scratch's side for that entire time. Occasionally wandering off the path, but almost always very quickly coming back obediently to heel.

Scratch and lostindc and the gang have been in overdrive for the past few days, adding whole new volumes to the demonology they've crafted. It's truly a thing of wonder.

Well, perhaps I'm being too hasty when I read personal dislike into Kishkumen's language about us. Here's a sampling of it -- I'm leaving some out, and have culled it from only a single thread -- from within just the past twenty-four hours:

He's described Professor Midgley as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He's compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

I think that, deep down, he really both likes and respects us, and just wants us to be more gentle in our rhetoric. Don't you?

And, trust me, Kishkumen's pal Scratch and some of the others there are dishing up pure demonizing fiction, complete with mythical pending Church disciplinary councils and insubordination to the leaders of the Church and "inquisitions" and . . . It's unutterably bizarre. But the folks over there seem to be a gullible bunch.

I'm not a fan of harsh language and judgment, either. But, after six years and perhaps even more of such vilification by Scratch and his sidekick Kishkumen and an ever-changing if small cast of extras -- and it's literal vilification, being described as, among many other things, "vile" -- I don't think I'm being particularly rough or hasty in expressing my lack of enthusiasm for this sort of stuff.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59880-john-dehlin-and-faith-reconstruction/page__st__180

I'm sure this will help convince the outside world that Mormonism is a mature, respectable religion that deserves to be taken seriously.

[_Equality]

After the reception he has received from Midgley, Schryver, et al. at MD&D, I don't understand why John Dehlin doesn't just release the video he has of Midgley attacking him at UVU.

[_Philo Sofee]

Oh its obviously a mature, respected faith......er that is, until you begin to think for yourself and ask pertinent questions which shed light on the canard of faith, obedience, and believe us when we speak the thinking has been done. If you do any of those, Midgley Co. go at you like blood hounds after a coon. It's the only thing apologists have. They certainly can't present good reason or evidence for their information they think is the truth. They accuse, then vilify, then deny. It's the perfect apologetic. It gets them into the celestial where they can look down from on high and gloat over all the rest of the poor lesser bastards. It's pure Mormonism. How can they not do so? It's obvious they have had all their second anointings, and I suspect they are lobbying the brethren for third anointings that are even greater yet!

[_moksha]

The whole indictment, and the accompanying "confession" is something that could be expected from a someone with the mental development and perception skills of an early teen.

Freud would link it back to some failure during the Midgley potty training. Sartre would simply add that Midgley is being "L' Anal".

[_Cicero]

And, trust me, Kishkumen's pal Scratch and some of the others there are dishing up pure demonizing fiction, complete with mythical pending Church disciplinary councils and insubordination to the leaders of the Church and "inquisitions" and . . . It's unutterably bizarre. But the folks over there seem to be a gullible bunch.

I do continue to think that the likelihood of any formal discipline of prominent apologists is extremely low. That certainly doesn't mean that everyone in the upper echelons of Church hierarchy would be pleased by their antics, however, and I really wish they would cease equating criticism of them with criticism of the church. It is clear that they will not be satisfied for Dehlin to merely return to church activity. For them to stop harping on him, he also has to join the cult of Dan, Bill and Lou.