Dunnisms from Midgley

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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
God
Posts: 9522
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20801
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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
God
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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?

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Lemmie wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:25 am
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
God
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Lemmie »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 10:15 am
Lemmie wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 9:25 am


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
Savior (mortal ministry)
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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).

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20801
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by 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

I have a question
God
Posts: 9522
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by I have a question »

I'm struggling to locate a post...any post...from either Coach or the Old Kit Man where they voiced their disagreement with the "I'm A Mormon" and "Meet The Mormon" campaigns.
“More Mormons to meet? LDS Church to release second ‘Meet the Mormons’ film”

This should be interesting:
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865657 ... e.co.uk%2F

I liked the first one.
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865657 ... e.co.uk%2F

And a fireside Coach ran...
For those who might care and who might be in the vicinity, I’ll be speaking tomorrow night — Sunday night, 24 September 2017 — to a singles fireside. My topic will be “Mormons and Muslims.” The fireside will begin at 7:00 PM, at 828 West 1600 North, Orem, Utah.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... he+Mormons

Their longstanding loathing of the pejoratives "Mormon" and "Mormonism" seems to be a recent affectation...

User avatar
Holy Ghost
Holy Ghost
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:12 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Holy Ghost »

For them to claim that the loathing of the terms Mormon and Mormonism has been longstanding is simply the lates example of current-revelation-requires-gaslighting about the past. It's just that Russell's mileage on the topic varies from that of Monson, before him Hinckley, before him.... At least in 1978, the only gaslighting about lifting the ban on the priesthood is the claim that they now don't know the source of the ban (though it was touted before 1978 as a direct commandment from the Lord). They haven't tried to claim that blacks have all along, since April 6, 1830, been allowed the Mormon priesthood.

Stem
God
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Stem »

Oh boy, Midgley and Peterson, maybe I'll dust off my old Disqus account and head back over there. meh...I don't' know, I probably won't. They get a little too fussy about the wrong things. But with that said, Midgley isn't alone in his memory failures. I think I've seen nearly every Mormon defender out there claiming they decided years before Nelson's reign that Mormon was such a bad descriptor and they have opposed its use for as long as they can remember. Of course, as far as I can tell and can remember they've been avid defenders of all the Church's Mormon-themed promotional events, and they all type "Mormon" whenever they search for some place to go get upset at apostates. None of them ever seemed to balk if ever I used my favored term Mormon.

I think they convince themselves of nearly anything as long as it somehow relates to defender their religion. I don't mind the gaslighting attempts. I think they really believe it.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3280
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Dr Exiled »

Stem wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 3:33 pm
Oh boy, Midgley and Peterson, maybe I'll dust off my old Disqus account and head back over there. meh...I don't' know, I probably won't. They get a little too fussy about the wrong things. But with that said, Midgley isn't alone in his memory failures. I think I've seen nearly every Mormon defender out there claiming they decided years before Nelson's reign that Mormon was such a bad descriptor and they have opposed its use for as long as they can remember. Of course, as far as I can tell and can remember they've been avid defenders of all the Church's Mormon-themed promotional events, and they all type "Mormon" whenever they search for some place to go get upset at apostates. None of them ever seemed to balk if ever I used my favored term Mormon.

I think they convince themselves of nearly anything as long as it somehow relates to defender their religion. I don't mind the gaslighting attempts. I think they really believe it.
I've made a few comments on that thread today. I don't think it's worth the trouble, though. They will say anything in support of whomever is the fearless leader, regardless if it contradicts what former fearless leader said last week prior to his untimely death.

Stem
God
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Stem »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 3:44 pm


I've made a few comments on that thread today. I don't think it's worth the trouble, though. They will say anything in support of whomever is the fearless leader, regardless if it contradicts what former fearless leader said last week prior to his untimely death.
I know...it's just running around in circles with them. Very good of you to tough it out for the rest of us.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21845
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by moksha »

I have a question wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 1:48 pm
“More Mormons to meet? LDS Church to release second ‘Meet the Mormons’ film”
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php? ... fullpage=1

The new title will be Meet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Camouflaged Mormons).

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Dr. Shades »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 3:44 pm
I've made a few comments on that thread today. I don't think it's worth the trouble, though. They will say anything in support of whomever is the fearless leader, regardless if it contradicts what former fearless leader said last week prior to his untimely death.
"Untimely?"

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20801
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Dr. Shades, “Untimely?”

Perhaps Thomas S. Monson was removed from his office for approving the “I’m a Mormon!” campaign.

- Doc

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3280
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 5:54 pm
Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 3:44 pm
I've made a few comments on that thread today. I don't think it's worth the trouble, though. They will say anything in support of whomever is the fearless leader, regardless if it contradicts what former fearless leader said last week prior to his untimely death.
"Untimely?"
Aren't all fearless leaders' deaths in Mormonism untimely? Don't the faithful cheerleaders want to cheer on the current leader forever? And sad is the day when current fearless leader passes into the holy realms above and cannot imbue a thirsty membership with spiritual water any longer, Amen.

User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder & Visionary
Posts: 14130
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by Dr. Shades »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Aren't all fearless leaders' deaths in Mormonism untimely?
Not since Joseph Smith, Jr.
And sad is the day when current fearless leader passes into the holy realms above and cannot imbue a thirsty membership with spiritual water any longer, Amen.
Not to worry; there's always another to continue imbuing a thirsty membership with spiritual water in very short order.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9522
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Dunnisms from Midgley

Post by I have a question »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 11:41 pm
Dr Exiled wrote:
Tue May 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Aren't all fearless leaders' deaths in Mormonism untimely?
Not since Joseph Smith, Jr.
And sad is the day when current fearless leader passes into the holy realms above and cannot imbue a thirsty membership with spiritual water any longer, Amen.
Not to worry; there's always another to continue imbuing a thirsty membership with spiritual water in very short order.
Today's fearless leader becomes "a flawed man influenced by the culture of his day who spoke with limited understanding and promoted personal opinion rather than doctrine" the instant he's dead.

Post Reply