Dunnisms from Midgley

[_Dr Exiled]

I think Smoot might need to jettison his mopologist friends and avoid the idea that everyone who doesn't believe in Mormonism is somehow defective. It seems pretty obvious it is the other way around. DCP, Midge and the like, with their attack style Mormon apologetics do a disservice to Smoot and to where the church should be heading. Also, I don't think he does well when he is on the attack. Humility, open acknowledgement of problems, and an attitude of choosing Mormonism despite its flaws is where I think apologetics should be. Attacking the questioner when your pushing something akin to a flat-earth just makes one look desperate and pushes more out.

[_Lemmie]

Probably more of a strategy than a lie, but still pretty entertaining:

Avatar
Louis Midgley
an hour ago

I just had to smile as Dan recounts the opinions of his critics. The fact is that, if I actually have these kinds of critics, I have only perhaps twice in many years noticed that they exist...

Reply

Posted by midgley, June 28, this year:

Louis Midgley

I have recently received three Google Alerts that send me to a despicable message board, whose owner represents himself as Dr. Shades. Virtually every item that mentions me is false in most every possible way. And also filled with a strange and unhealthy and unnecessary hatred. What these alerts also indicate is that quite a few people spend a great deal of time going over and over what gets posted on this blog.

There are people who can't seem to spit or swallow when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ. .

Or maybe that’s just how he manages to sleep at night, after unnecessarily, unhealthily, and STRANGELY hating on any non-lds commenters he runs across.

[_Lemmie]

In a repeat of what Doc cam called “the Paul H. Dunn-Kruger effect,” Midgley has re-posted this somewhat dubious story:

Louis Midgley 13 hours ago

I have told this story before, but I had President David O. McKay order the then editor of what was then called the Improvement Era to phone me and tell me that he had read an essay I had written entitled “The Christian World Awakens to the Need for Prophets,” Improvement Era, Aug. 1970, pp. 68–78. 11, and that he liked it very much, but that he was annoyed by my use of "Mormonism," "Mormons," and so forth. I thought about it for about one minute, and since then I have avoided using those distorting labels unless I was forced to when quoting others. That was very close to being fifty years ago.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4909609486

He had President McKay order an editor to call him?

But moving on. Compare this year’s version to last year’s:

Louis Midgley:

I have told this story before; I will now tell it again. Many years ago, I published an essay in the Old Improvement Era entitle "The Christian World Awakens to the Need for Prophets." Immediately after it appeared in print, I received a phone call from Jay Todd, who was the editor of that magazine. He told me that President David O. McKay had phoned to indicate that he had read my essay and really liked it.

However he had one criticism, and wanted me to know what it was. Hence the phone call. Elder McKay disliked my use of the words Mormon, instead of Latter-day Saint, and Mormonism, rather than Church of Jesus Christ or Community of Latter-day Saints. I now don't recall if I used Mormon Church, rather than Church of Jesus Christ.

For just a moment I was annoyed. But very soon I was certain that Elder McKay was right. And from that moment on, I have tried hard avoid Mormon Church, and Mormonism....

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4588615424

At least this year, he remembered to take out the phrase, “Immediately after it appeared in print.” He still implies it however, because without it the story makes no sense. Why would McKay object to language, to the extent he had the editor call Midgley, but then let it be published anyway?

Of course, my last year’s first objection to this story still stands; there is no way McKay made a call after seeing this august Edition article as he had passed away January of that year.


Also, this year Midgley follows up the story with the assertion that we have always been at war with EastAsia:

At least four times the Brethren have tried to get Latter-day Saints to take seriously the actual name of the Church. But they always failed because, until Elder Nelson insisted on the proper use of the name of the Church of Jesus Christ, KSL, Channel 5 TV, and the Deseret News simply ignored them. Journalists must use a shorter title, was their excuse. When I was once heavily involved in Fair Mormon--notice that the name has not been changed--there was a journalist who insisted that he and all other journalists must use names like Mormon Church, Church of the Latter-day Saints, or LDS Church, and words like Mormonism, since that is only possible way to communicate with others.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4909609486

The story is not over, though. Who is he speaking about with this little revelation?

And the Fact is that Fair Mormon is still called Fair Mormon because one individual insists that this is how it must be. And even Mormon Scholars Testify, which Professor Peterson created this same fellow insists cannot possibly be changed to Latter-day Saint Scholars Testify.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4909609486

[_I have a question]

An extract from someones testimony on FairMormon...

There were, in those days, not many but only a few thoughtful, faithful Latter-day Saints in universities. For instance, Henry Eyring and G. Homer Durham at the University of Utah fit this description. I eventually discovered Hugh Nibley at Brigham Young University. Otherwise, the cupboard was bare. There were, of course, cultural Mormons who mocked the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and manifested a mere antiquarian curiosity about Mormon things. Here and there one could see a few signs, among those sometimes described as the lost generation, of genuine faith in God, or even much serious thought about matters of faith. I soon learned to identify and then negotiate their minefields.

For as long as I can remember, I have had a fascination with divine special revelations, including especially a passion for the Book of Mormon. As a young boy, when I first heard the story of its recovery, I believed the story in a naïve way. I thus began by wanting to believe that the Book of Mormon was true. When I eventually read, pondered, and then prayed about its contents—not about whether it is true but about what its truth is for me—it seemed to me to be the crucial key to getting right with God. And every reading yields new wonders. However, I have discovered that some of those who do not believe that there was a Lehi colony do not want it to be true, which seems very odd to me. Early in my university experience, I discovered that the most impressive cultural Mormon on campus liked to boast that he had never read the Book of Mormon, though he was nonetheless certain that it was filled with much nonsense.

https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/ ... is-midgley

Posted January 2010
Updated July 2015

He is also more than happy to use the words Mormon and Mormonism with the word "anti" in front of them, see HERE

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

His wiki bio lists him as a “Mormon” apologist, and that “He contributed the article on theology to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.” If you search his Disqus history he uses Mormon and Mormonism comfortably, forgetting his outrage rather conveniently. In other words, that lying sack of swine crap is lying about his history and lying about who he is.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

DanielPeterson Mod John Pack Lambert • 14 hours ago

JPL: "We need to get FAIR Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Saint scholars testify."

The matter has been raised with General Authorities in Salt Lake City, who advised holding off for just a bit longer to make the change.

http://disq.us/p/297hjc3

____
Louis Midgley John Pack Lambert • 14 hours ago • edited

Please keep in mind that Mormon Scholars Testify and Fair Mormon would change in an instant except for one person on its Board who will not allow it.

http://disq.us/p/297hh7b

Hmmm. Those two answers don’t agree at all, do they?

[_Doctor Scratch]

DanielPeterson Mod John Pack Lambert • 14 hours ago

JPL: "We need to get FAIR Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Saint scholars testify."

The matter has been raised with General Authorities in Salt Lake City, who advised holding off for just a bit longer to make the change.

http://disq.us/p/297hjc3

____
Louis Midgley John Pack Lambert • 14 hours ago • edited

Please keep in mind that Mormon Scholars Testify and Fair Mormon would change in an instant except for one person on its Board who will not allow it.

http://disq.us/p/297hh7b

Hmmm. Those two answers don’t agree at all, do they?

Whoa--what??? I thought that "MST" was DCP's personal project, and yet now it seems that somebody else is pulling the strings? It sounds to me like this is yet another case where one of the Brethren is meddling in Mopologetic affairs, despite the many, many, many denials that they even cared about Church critics/Mopologetics. The extent of the lying is really breathtaking, when you think about it.

[_Lemmie]

Hmmm. Those two answers don’t agree at all, do they?

Whoa--what??? I thought that "MST" was DCP's personal project, and yet now it seems that somebody else is pulling the strings? It sounds to me like this is yet another case where one of the Brethren is meddling in Mopologetic affairs, despite the many, many, many denials that they even cared about Church critics/Mopologetics. The extent of the lying is really breathtaking, when you think about it.

I was considering that this aspect of the conversation deserves a separate thread, but I don’t know enough about the background to do it. I’d love to read more about your take on it, if you are so inclined.

[_Tom]

Dr. Midgley:

I have told this story before, but I had President David O. McKay order the then editor of what was then called the Improvement Era to phone me and tell me that he had read an essay I had written entitled “The Christian World Awakens to the Need for Prophets,” Improvement Era, Aug. 1970, pp. 68–78. 11, and that he liked it very much, but that he was annoyed by my use of "Mormonism," "Mormons," and so forth. I thought about it for about one minute, and since then I have avoided using those distorting labels unless I was forced to when quoting others.

I checked a piece of his at random (published in 1989): https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr

Bottom line: I must insist that I was completely annoyed to find that Dr. Midgley used the noun Mormon once, the noun Mormons twice, and the adjective Mormon at least 16 times in a single essay (who was the editor?):

"Doctrinal Commentary is thus an inventory of statements about what are thought to be Mormon doctrines or Mormon theology, cast in the form of glosses (or annotations) on the text" (p. 92).

"Instead, the faith of the Nephites and the language of the Book of Mormon tend to be harmonized with certain contemporary statements about Mormon beliefs, though that is of necessity done in a random manner, and always on the assumption that the two must be made to appear identical" (p. 93).

"From the desire to have tidy synopses of Mormon doctrines, we may sow seeds of contention, and end up disputing over what we may even want to identify as the doctrines of salvation. Against such the Book of Mormon provides an emphatic warning. Latter-day Saint scholars would
do well to guard against the arrogant desire to advance theological systems-to develop a kind of Mormon scholasticism- rather than assuming a more modest role which gratefully accepts what is taught in the scriptural canon and by the prophets" (pp. 94-95).

"The flaws in Doctrinal Commentary are ones common to much of Mormon scholarship" (p. 95).

"The mistake about which I am complaining is the urge to see in the Book of Mormon merely scattered fragments from which one might fashion a theology or system of Mormon doctrines, which are also roughly harmonized with notions drawn from exterior sources" (p. 95 n. 4).

"It does not identify the whole range or complex of opinions, speculation or beliefs about divine and human things, or the rites, practices, and traditions that go into the making of a contemporary Mormon; it is, instead, the most primary, elementary, plain teachings of Jesus Christ" (p. 101).

"They are therefore prepared to say exactly what Mormon doctrine is on the nature of God and man, and numerous other theoretical questions" (p. 103).

"In our urge for theology we are sometimes disappointed to find how little is said in the Book of Mormon that helps us fashion a system of doctrines that deal with the nature of God, or the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, original sin, the nature of man, and so forth, about which it is sometimes thought that Mormons have or at least should have detailed doctrines" (pp. 103-104).

"Nor do I think that we do the Kingdom a service by attempting to harmonize or winnow the various attempts to fashion a Mormon theology with the contents of the Book of Mormon and later revelations" (p. 104).

"But even as an elementary and informal account of Mormon beliefs, Doctrinal Commentary is flawed, since it is brief, sketchy and necessarily a random rather than an orderly or even historical explication" (p. 104).

"These homilies tend to opine about words or phrases, but they seldom probe for the actual meaning of the message in the text; they tend to provide informal expositions of already familiar Mormon sentiments" (pp. 104-105).

"And, given that particular mode of argument, they tend to settle on a meaning for a phrase or passage in the Book of Mormon by drawing upon (or fashioning) some exterior and subsequent or even unrelated statement about what are thought to be Mormon doctrines" (p. 107).

"We should not desire to dispute over doctrine, and the authors of Doctrinal Commentary clearly see themselves as settling questions, and perhaps even thereby preventing disputations, by giving simple, clear, contemporary interpretations of Mormon doctrines" (p. 108).

"My view is that McConkie and Millet would have been more successful if they had been less concerned that the reader be coached on correct versions of what a Mormon ought to believe on a host of matters" (p. 110).

"We certainly do not need a tendentious Mormon scholasticism bathed in the style and armed with the methods of Sectarian Fundamentalism, any more than we need a Revisionist Liberalism grounded in the categories of the Secular Fundamentalism that has grown up since the Enlightenment" (p. 110).

"Granted that some historians, like any other group of Latter-day Saint intellectuals, including those who see themselves as theologians and experts on Mormon doctrine, may be confused or have strayed from the path" (p. 111).

"Since the focus is on what the Saints now believe-on Mormon doctrines or on setting forth a dogmatic theology for Mormons, such a thing can be approached more adequately through other and especially through more recent pronouncements" (pp. 112-113).

I was also annoyed to discover that Dr. Midgley used the term Mormons five times in a 1979 BYU Studies article: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/brod ... seph-smith.

To my annoyance, he used the term Mormonism in an article published in 1995: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr

"A candid look at the history of Mormonism will show that bad things follow when the Saints fail to take divine things seriously, and, as a result, end up not really understanding much about human things either" (p. 261).

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

"This website is the work of Daniel C. Peterson, Scott Gordon, and Tanya Spackman. It was inspired by a request made by Elder M. Russell Ballard, and reiterated by other authors in the October 2009 Ensign, that we use the internet as a way of sharing our testimonies of the gospel."

So, Louis, which one is it?

- Doc