Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

[Doctor Scratch]

One of the old, classic Mopologetic chestnuts--one that was really popular during the 2000s with Juliann and the old FAIRboard crew--was that Mopologetics was "different" because all they were doing was "defending." They were constantly challenging you to find one--just *ONE* single example!--of them trashing others' religious beliefs. They didn't set up "ministries" (and well-funded ones at that) that were set up to attack others' faith.

Over time, though, this assertion has become increasingly problematic, and I would argue that this year--2020--is the year in which the bottom of that argument has at last completely disintegrated. The "blame" for this, as it were, can be placed almost entirely on the shoulders of Louis C. Midgley.

Of course, you could see cracks in the argument long ago: DCP and others claimed that the ex-Mormons on RfM actually *were* still religious: it's just that they'd transferred their religious zeal over to hating the LDS Church. There was Bill Hamblin, casually tossing around the anti-Semitic "K" word on the FAIR Mormon blog; and DCP got into trouble after he told Jews--on a Jewish blog--that they had better shut up with their criticism of LDS baptisms for holocaust victims because "Jews have few friends in the world" (yes: that was his exact language).

Other problematic statements emerged, such as DCP's trashing of Calvinist beliefs. But like I said, 2020 seems unique in the annals of Mopologetics insofar as Midgley had totally blown the whole thing apart. Of course the Mopologists hate other people's religious beliefs! It happens even within their own Church: every single post on "Sic et Non" about Jonathan Neville is a case in point. They hate the Heartlanders; they hate the Mormon Transhumanists. All of these other belief systems--according to them--are perfectly acceptable objects of ridicule.

And Midgley has been leading the charge--his interactions with Gina Colvin being a prime example. Lemmie has rightly pointed out many times just how dismissive Midgley has been vis-à-vis what he calls her "Anglican thing." (And each Sunday, I assume that Midgley does his "Mormon thing"? Actually, he never seems to do it at all. His behavior seems so far removed from anything even resembling "Christian" that you have to wonder which faith he actually ascribes to.) Midgley was also dismissive of Colvin's affiliation with the Community of Christ: he noted more than once that the faith seemed to be essentially "shriveling," and he seemed to make a mockery of the relatively low membership rate. The LDS Church has more meetinghouses in the area than the Community of Christ...So, score one for the Mopologists, I guess?

And then there is the Mopologists' non-stop attacks on Gemli, whom they accuse of being an atheist "zealot," and thus a "religionist." Again, I ask: Do the Mopologists care about others' beliefs? Do they think that being respectful towards others' beliefs is a healthy thing to do? I'm sure DCP would point to his connection to Islam as proof that he's sensitive to the religious beliefs of other people. But if that's the only example he's got, shouldn't the Mopologists be worried?

Given all this, I'm sure that Midgley's rather aggressive "interrogation" of Dr. Shades caught your attention:

In brief: I spent nearly 19 years as an agnostic, but I became a deist on March 9, 2017. The reasons for this would take an EXTREMELY long time to adequately explain verbally, so typing it out would be entirely impractical.

...to the idea that there is a God, or power, for Force that is perhaps the grounds for our world? But that it does not or cannot be at all interested in human affairs, including whether Black lives or any lives matter? Ever and in any possible way?

I believe that it IS interested in human affairs.

...really? Why? Deism is supposed to be the product of merely unaided human reason. It is most commonly held by people with very solid command of math or natural science. And hence not those with a passing interest in English literature. And hence it stands or falls on arguments and evidence. Dr. Shades, please give all of us just a tiny hint of your own reasons and arguments.

I'm sure you can see where this is going. The Mopologists have spent pretty much their entire adult lives getting ridiculed for their actual religious beliefs--whether that be in a historical Book of Mormon; a Book of Abraham that's not a fraud; whether that is Added Upon, or their support for the notion of "TK Smoothies." So Midgley is looking here for an opportunity to subject Shades's beliefs to the same type of ridicule. It's straight-up bashing, in other words: "My religion is better than yours!"

And on it goes:

The last thing I want to read would be something written by a fake doctor that, as Dr. Shades just indicated happen on 9 March 2017 that "would take an EXTREMELY long time to adequately explain verbally," and hence "typing it out would be entirely impractical" to explain?

I agree. Learning about how someone returned to belief in God and/or a higher power is something in which you most definitely would NOT be interested.

...to a "belief in God and/or a higher power? That is entirely indifferent to and not aware of human beings or the evils they encounter or do to others? Why should you or anyone else be interested in such a "higher power"?

And, please notice that Dr. Shades used the word "returned." Is this his odd way of indicating that when he was a young fellow he sort of more or less believed in some sort of a "higher power"? Perhaps Dr Shades did not intend much of anything by his use of "returned," or perhaps this is at least hinting at what he might once sort of entertained before he went missing, and became hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Shades, of course, is correct. Midgley is just looking for a soft spot that he can stab. On it goes:

A trusted source pointed out to me that "Deism" implies belief in a non-interventionist higher power, which is an aspect that I don't assume is attendant to said higher power. Therefore, I've clearly been using the word incorrectly. Is "Theist" the more accurate term for my point of view? Or perhaps "non-demoninational Theist?" I'm open to further light and knowledge.

Dr. Shades, please give all of us just a tiny hint of your own reasons and arguments.

I can't, because it was neither reason nor arguments that got me to this position.

Dr. Shades: Are you telling us that on 9 March 2017 something happened to you, or you encountered something, that was, if not irrational, was at least non-rational, that suddenly convinced you that there is a power or force outside and hence greater than you? And that this, whatever it was, was neither rational nor was it the product of your own assessment of arguments and evidence?

Did this "experience," if that is the right word, somehow provide you with a moral imperative, or new ethical direction for your life? Did it somehow convince you that death will not put an end to you as a conscious moral agent?

Are you a mystic? Or did you have a mystical experience? Please consult your "trusted source" for information on mystics and mystical experiences.

Or did you have a rather typical conservative Protestant type "born again" experience where you suddenly felt like your sins had been forgiven, and you instantly became "justified" without changing anything about yourself? Did you say some form of the so-called "sinner's prayer"?

I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.

Notice that last sentence. Belief is based on "trauma" or "illness" or "medication"--and he adds on "drugs," which I take to mean that he's referring to illicit drugs: something different from "medication." (Or he was just being redundant.) Is it possible to be any more dismissive of someone's religious experiences? Midgley only wants Shades to talk about it so that he (Midgley) can ridicule him (i.e., Shades). And it goes on:

I am reposting my comment to Dr. Shades below, in which I asked some questions about his "conversion" experience, or what might also be called "religious revival, " when he came to know of a power or force worthy of being called God, in which Dr. Shades came to know in apparently some non-rational way that this "thing" is actually interested in him so that he is now toying with calling himself what he has described as a "non-demoninational Theist" rather than his earlier description of his being a Deist.

I am wondering if others like Dr. Scratch on his hate board know of his conversion experience, and approve of this stunning development. I know so little from my brief glance at his hate board that I wonder if his return to some form of faith in God has been discussed and approved by Dr. Scratch and others.

I sort of anticipate that my genuine interest in the this matter might launch a flurry of complaints that I am mocking the personal faith of Dr. Scratch, merely because I am interested in and hence curious about his "religious experience," or however one might describe it.
---------------------------------------------------

Dr. Shades: Are you telling us that on 9 March 2017 something happened to you, or you encountered something, that was, if not irrational, was at least non-rational, that suddenly convinced you that there is a power or force outside and hence greater than you? And that this, whatever it was, was neither rational nor was it the product of your own assessment of arguments and evidence?

Did this "experience," if that is the right word, somehow provide you with a moral imperative, or new ethical direction for your life? Did it somehow convince you that death will not put an end to you as a conscious moral agent?

Are you a mystic? Or did you have a mystical experience? Please consult your "trusted source" for information on mystics and mystical experiences.

Or did you have a rather typical conservative Protestant type "born again" experience where you suddenly felt like your sins had been forgiven, and you instantly became "justified" without changing anything about yourself? Did you say some form of the so-called "sinner's prayer"?

I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.

Hi there, Dr. Midgley. Yes, it's true: you *are* "mocking the personal faith of Dr. [Shades]." Here's a question I already know you're incapable of answering: *Why* are you "interested" in this? And for the record: I have no opinion on Dr. Shades's religious experience; this was the first I'd heard of it. If he's happy, then I'm happy for him. I don't know what it means to "approve of this stunning development." I don't think it's "stunning"--people's beliefs can change. And why wouldn't I "approve" of it? (Whatever that means.) Is it wrong for Shades's religious beliefs to change? Midgley's did, after all, unless he still thinks that Black people shouldn't be allowed to hold the priesthood.

In any case, it would seem that Midgley either thought better of what he was doing, or he was gently chided by somebody to knock it off. Check out these two schizophrenic posts:

Dr. Shades: I am genuinely interested in what exactly happened to you on 9 March 2017 that caused you to regain/faith in a force or a higher power or God that cares about you and other human beings. And hence presumably convinced you that human beings are not merely cockroaches. Did you, I wonder, have a NDE? Or did you have what in German is called a Himmelfahrt--a glorious trip to heaven? Or have you become a mystic? I think that Professor Peterson might give you permission to respond to my gentle request for more information on your transforming experience on this blog entry, instead of on the cockroach blog item. Either way will be fine with me.

I suddenly realized that I really have no interest in having a conversation with Shades about anything. I would be delighted if Moksha and Shades (and several others) would just entertain themselves in their own arena.

Maybe Dr. Moore was holding his "deal" over DCP's thread, and still holding out the promise of $10,000 if there is "de-escalation" of the "war," and this prompted Peterson to reach out to Midgley and tell him to shut up? LOL if that's the case.

In any event, this is shaping up to be quite an interesting year in Mopologetics. 2020 was going to go down as a historic year (mostly for unpleasant reasons, so why not heap it on?) no matter what. But Midgley has made a (dubiously) important contribution insofar as he has supplied absolutely incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence that the Mopologists engage in mockery and dismissal of others' religious beliefs. If it's okay to do this to other people, then why is it wrong to do it to the Mopologists?

[Gadianton]

Probably the defining moment for me in my assessment of the Mopologist's utter disregard for the faith of anybody outside of their clan was when several persons who had converted to a movement based on a "sealed portion" translation showed up on ZLMB to talk about their faith. They were as soft-spoken and respectful as they come, and yet the Mopologists jeered and ridiculed them. DCP and Kiwi57 were both there, and they both participated in that thread and they both recall that thread. Nobody forgets a thread like that. Now, those two didn't participate in the jeering that I recall, but neither did they set the example and let the junior apologists who worshiped them know that what they were doing was not appropriate.

In the irony of ironies, loudmouth Louis Midgley says:

I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.

On one level, his jeering of Dr. Shades is deplorable. But the deeper irony here is that on a blog condemning scientific naturalism and reductionism, Midgley is taking a reductionist approach to the faith of Dr. Shades. How moronic can you get?

Dan, it's easy to ban low-hanging fruit like me. I knew I'd get less than 5 posts in; no offense taken. The real show of inner character would be for you to set the example by banning Louis Midgley and Kiwi57 from your blog. If you want to know what infecting it; it's those two. So long as they remain there, your blog will be a place of tension and contention, independent of what goes on here at Mormon Discussions.

Might I remind you, Dan, that Louis Midgley downvoted every single nice comment toward Gina Colvin and upvoted every single derogatory comment toward her on the very thread where he presumably so innocently asked for an address so that he could meet her. Do you think I'm making that up?

I really think we should look into the identity of her former Stake President and see to it he has a chance to look over the reprehensible behavior of your best friend Lou toward Gina.

[moksha]

Midgley was plying Shades for information to either add to a dossier or else to blast Scratch? Perhaps Lou was simply relieving himself of a Himmelfahrt from eating too much red cabbage.

I wish Midgley could be someone dispensing wisdom based on years of experience, someone you could be proud to meet in passing on a message board. Despite what is said on this board, I see Dr. Peterson as having many admirable qualities. I wish he could encourage Lou to get back in touch with whatever positive qualities Dr. Peterson has seen throughout their years of friendship.

And Kiwi? Perhaps visit a vet for a case of the mange.

[Doctor Scratch]

I win again:

I've reached my limit, Shades. This isn't a game.

I just saw (and skimmed) my Malevolent Stalker's latest treatise on your message board. In it, he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them.

This is a brazen and shameless lie, and he knows it. What's more, you know it.

My record in this respect is decades-long, well-documented, very public, internationally attested, and unambiguously clear.

Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

In the meantime, though, he's done us the service of showing how maliciously skewed and dishonest his creepy "dossiers" are -- you recall, the sorts of "files" that you falsely accused us of keeping on "enemies" -- and the cunning disingenuousness with which he deploys them.

[Lemmie]

I win again:

I've reached my limit, Shades. This isn't a game.

I just saw (and skimmed) my Malevolent Stalker's latest treatise on your message board. In it, he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them.

This is a brazen and shameless lie, and he knows it. What's more, you know it.

My record in this respect is decades-long, well-documented, very public, internationally attested, and unambiguously clear.

Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

In the meantime, though, he's done us the service of showing how maliciously skewed and dishonest his creepy "dossiers" are -- you recall, the sorts of "files" that you falsely accused us of keeping on "enemies" -- and the cunning disingenuousness with which he deploys them.

Midgley’s “files” don’t count then? From just this month:

Midgley:

And I also assembled a large file on and by John Dehlin, who was one of my former students. I had much more that Greg Smith could have drawn upon for his debunking of Dehlin.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1228899

[Dr Exiled]

Midge really takes the cake on this latest episode with Dr. Shades. Watch out Dr. Shades, you might find out soon that the Midge has been talking to your relatives, innocently of course, or your wife and/or kids, in order to get more information on your religious views. He will probably be particularly interested in the trauma/using drugs angle. So, be aware! The Midge is on the case.

Who am I kidding, Midge has probably been on the case for years. I bet the creepy guy Shades' family perhaps sees every once and a while, loitering, is actually Midge on the hunt for information. He won't be denied in his quest to vanquish any and all perceived enemies to his brand of Mormonism and certaiy Dr. Shades is on his list.

[Philo Sofee]

Daniel C. Peterson
I just saw (and skimmed) my Malevolent Stalker's latest treatise on your message board. In it, he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them.

This is a brazen and shameless lie, and he knows it. What's more, you know it.

My record in this respect is decades-long, well-documented, very public, internationally attested, and unambiguously clear.

Such awesome Melchizedek Priesthood Elohim self righteousness! It just gives me goosebumps!

[Shulem]

Hey Dan, what’s the king’s name in Facsimile No 3 and is the god Anubis really a slave just because he’s black? Your silence is deafening. When are you going to correct the errors your Church keeps printing in slandering the ancient Egyptians?

[Gadianton]

I see that Dan upvoted this comment by Kiwi57:

Here is an example of the "superior argumentation" you upvoted wholesale at Gina Colvin's blog:

You should read the hundreds of examples before commenting. It’s admirable you are attempting to defend Louse. Unfortunately, his nastiness and un-Christlike behavior are on public display for all to see.

LOL @ "Louse".

This upvoting is so offensive to you and Kiwi, but Louis' upvote of all the negative comments against Dr. Colvin on her blog at the same time he was requesting her address from her isn't a big deal at all?

This thread, Dan:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormo ... ll-Mormon/

I've always thought that, for a Mormon, converting to Judiasm makes much more sense than trying to make your way through the jungle of Modern Christianity. Your list rivals Greta Thurmberg. Postmodernism is not working. Your courage seems like artifice. Move on. You don't have what it takes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I get it. Your name is Legion. There's a million of you.

And Migdley upvoted this comment as he did every other derogatory comment on that thread!

That's the Migdley our B.H. Roberts Chair, Doctor Scratch, is discussing in this thread. The thread is not about you.

Perhaps a 30-day break from your blog, which encourages his behavior would do Lou Migdley some good? Oh yes, your blog encourages his attacks on the faiths of others, such as Gina Colvin's and now Dr. Shades. Mainly, that encouragement comes through a steady stream of upvotes from Kiwi57. But you also do your own upvoting such as in this case by what appears to be a double standard. How dare anybody upvote the calling of Lou Midgley a "louse" but given that calling was in response to Migdley showing up to get Gina's address, and then upvote all the negative comments against her, isn't it a little bit understandable?

Which is worse, to be called a "louse" or to be called "Legion"? Do I need to consult what Church authorities have said about sons of perdition?

And check this out from the same blog:

No matter what a person calls themselves, the important thing is to know the Gospel of Grace. It is that Gospel that is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.

That's the full comment, and your buddy, Louis Migdley downvoted even that! Wouldn't you say your constant defense of Louis Migdley at least brings into question your own religious tolerance, even though this thread wasn't about your religious tolerance but you decided to make it about that?

Gina responded to that nice comment with an "Amen" and Louis Midgley EVEN DOWNVOTED THAT!!!

How about this example of religious tolerance from the same thread:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a liberal Protestant church. I believe the Community of Christ is closer to what you are looking for. I am glad the LDS church is not liberal Protestant.

How ecumenical is that! AND LOUIS MIDGLEY UPVOTED IT!!!!

Is your constant defense and protection of Louis Midgley's animosity toward Gina Colvin and her new faith as an Anglican an example of your stellar and clear record of respecting the faith of others?

[Lemmie]

I win again:

I've reached my limit, Shades. This isn't a game.

I just saw (and skimmed) my Malevolent Stalker's latest treatise on your message board. In it, he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them.

This is a brazen and shameless lie, and he knows it. What's more, you know it.

My record in this respect is decades-long, well-documented, very public, internationally attested, and unambiguously clear.

Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

In the meantime, though, he's done us the service of showing how maliciously skewed and dishonest his creepy "dossiers" are -- you recall, the sorts of "files" that you falsely accused us of keeping on "enemies" -- and the cunning disingenuousness with which he deploys them.

From a thread I bumped:

Louis Midgley Dr. Shades [august 2019]

I am actually not at all interested in "Dr. Shades" at all. Merely a bit amused. I have, however, long been interested in critics of the Church of Jesus Christ, and even in those who are clearly crackpots driven by some malevolent passion.

Nine of the ten items were what i saved from what others, several of whom were then fellow FairMormon volunteers, had uncovered about "Dr. Shades."

viewtopic.php?p=1229190#p1229190

[Doctor Scratch]

I see that Dr. Peterson has posted a new blog entry in an effort to counter the OP. It's a weak effort, naturally. He's wrong when he says that the OP "portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt." First, the principal focus of this thread was *Dr. Midgley*--not DCP. Second, the examples of 'contempt' that I gave are more about religious beliefs--not "religions" more generally. And the basic charge is absolutely correct: the Mopologists are remarkably contemptuous towards a whole range of beliefs--and that range just gets wider when you take them at their word that things like atheism and ex-Mormonism are also "religious" in nature.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that Midgley owes Dr. Shades an apology.

[Temp. Admin.]

. . . he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them. . . Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

Dear Drs. Scratch and Peterson:

Dr. Shades here. I hereby wish to point out my firm opinion / belief that Dr. Scratch's statement "Of course the Mopologists hate other people's religious beliefs!" does not apply to DCP himself regarding beliefs outside the Mormon umbrella. It applies to the people that Dr. Scratch pointed out, viz. the junior-tier mopologists from back in the 00s and a certain noteworthy Mopologist nowadays who is not DCP (I personally would add in a second non-DCP Mopologist, but hey, it wasn't my post). And it's also worth pointing out that hating a belief is quite different from hating a person, and--lest there be any lingering doubt--I sharply disbelieve that DCP hates any person whose religion is not his own. Fortunately, Doctor Scratch was careful to only make reference to beliefs and not people.

I know what you're thinking, and no, I'm not just saying this to pander or to continue to post at Sic et Non. I honestly and sincerely believe everything I just typed; if I didn't, I wouldn't type it at all and would happily just "take the hit" instead.

[Philo Sofee]

So if it is about beliefs being hated instead of people, why for decades did Peterson slam beliefs imagining Elohim and Jehovah were blessing them, but when his own beliefs are challenged and completely refuted does he (each one of them individually) get his panties all in a wad? If beliefs for Peterson and Midgley are fair game, then why do they personalize everything, imagining they are being persecuted, when their own beliefs are fair game? Or do we see they don't like a level and honest across the board criticizing and refuting of all beliefs, because somehow theirs are above criticism?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of schizophrenic posting and egging each other on the Mighty Mopin’ Power Complainer craps out these two posts within hours of each other:

In response to Mr. Peterson suggesting he ignore posters from this board, “Dan: I am and will continue to ignore him and his.”

In response to Mr. Peterson crapping on Moksha, “Smiles everyone, while Moksha gets taken to the Woodshed.”

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

The idiots wouldn't know a woodshed if they snuck around behind one to pee.

[Doctor Scratch]

. . . he portrays me as holding religions other than my own in contempt and as disrespecting believers in them. . . Unless and until you correct him on your message board, your comments will not be welcome here, because your silence there will demonstrate your lack of genuine interest in the truth.

Dear Drs. Scratch and Peterson:

Dr. Shades here. I hereby wish to point out my firm opinion / belief that Dr. Scratch's statement "Of course the Mopologists hate other people's religious beliefs!" does not apply to DCP himself regarding beliefs outside the Mormon umbrella. It applies to the people that Dr. Scratch pointed out, viz. the junior-tier mopologists from back in the 00s and a certain noteworthy Mopologist nowadays who is not DCP (I personally would add in a second non-DCP Mopologist, but hey, it wasn't my post). And it's also worth pointing out that hating a belief is quite different from hating a person, and--lest there be any lingering doubt--I sharply disbelieve that DCP hates any person whose religion is not his own. Fortunately, Doctor Scratch was careful to only make reference to beliefs and not people.

I know what you're thinking, and no, I'm not just saying this to pander or to continue to post at Sic et Non. I honestly and sincerely believe everything I just typed; if I didn't, I wouldn't type it at all and would happily just "take the hit" instead.

My Dear Dr. Shades:

As always, I admire your commitment to fairness. You make a number of solid points here, and I appreciate your even-handedness and perspective. But there are some aspects of your post with which I disagree.

--First, you are correct that the main subject of this thread was Dr. Midgley and his behavior towards other people's religious beliefs. Second, the post was aimed at Mopologists more generally--including those whom you describe as "junior-tier monologists from back in the 00s." Finally, Dr. Peterson fits into this in a perhaps tertiary way.

--I'm afraid that your "firm opinion / belief" in this case is not correct. I *did* absolutely intend to point out that Dr. Peterson hates other people's religious beliefs. He hates the "religious beliefs" of his own fellow Mormons, in fact! Every post promoting Peter Pan's 'Neville Neville Land' is a perfect case in point. Peterson might protest that, no, it's not the "belief" in a Heartland Model that he hates, but rather the fact that Neville is (allegedly) attacking him. But that's a distinction without a difference, isn't it? Why did Midgley get up in Rodney Meldrum's face? Purely for the sake of bullying? Or, instead, is this genuinely a war over doctrine/theology? Plus, think about that noticeably aggressive remark he made about Calvinism. And his youthful disrespect for Jewish wedding rituals (yes: I know--ridicule and "hatred" are not the same thing; the word I initially used was "attack," though, and ridiculing something that others view as sacred can be seen as an "attack"). And what about Peterson's arguably "bigoted" writings on James Strang?

--You are right, Dr. Shades, that "hating a belief is quite different from hating a person." At least, it is for normal people. But these are the Mopologists we're talking about. Consider this: Why do the Mopologists hate the "new" Maxwell Institute? Is it because the people there are horrible people? (Carrying on the "tradition," as it were? Swap out the personnel, but keep the ethos, eh?) Do they hate them on a competitive basis--i.e., because they "seized power" away from the Mopologists? Or do they hate them because they think they're too "liberal," and/or that they're pushing for a fictional Book of Mormon, or something that--no matter how you slice it--is basically a "religious belief"?

[Doctor Scratch]

One wonders if the Mopologists are being deliberately obtuse. Such as this from Dr. Midgley:

In a much, much, much lesser way I have been accused of holding that everyone who does not hold exactly my own exact understanding of the of the of Latter-day Saints are evil. And that I actually detest every other understanding of Christian faith. This is, of course, absurd. Instead, I have a very high regard, for example, for the the piety and scholarship of many Anglican, some Roman Catholic, and even conservative Protestant scholars. I especially appreciate and recommend the historical essays of Roger Olson, even though he happens to detest the Church of Jesus Christ and hence the faith of Latter-day Saints.

And I have made some but not nearly enough effort to urge Latter-day Saints to take very seriously the books and essays published by N. T. (Tom) Wright, who is a truly remarkable Anglican biblical scholar.

Quite a distortion, Dr. Midgley, because who said anything about "holding that everyone who does not hold exactly my own exact understanding of the of the [sic] of Latter-day Saints are evil"? (emphasis added). I merely said that he attacks "others' religious beliefs," which he absolutely does, and for which I've already supplied substantial evidence.

Midgley might help himself out here by *clarifying* why he goes after some people and not others. For example, why doesn't he accuse N. T. (Tom) Wright of doing an "Anglican thing"? Wright's adherence to the faith is okay, but Gina Colvin's is not? Is that the lesson we're supposed to take away from this?

And what about Grant Palmer's religious beliefs? Worthy of respect, or cause for an aggressive campaign? Or do you want to argue that Palmer's beliefs are somehow not "religious beliefs"? Maybe a discussion about orthodoxy and levels of adherence to authority is in order here?

[moksha]

Something I posted at Sic et Non:

DanielPeterson Mod Moksha • 14 hours ago

Moksha: "I've been told that while an asteroid impact might wipe out most forms of life on this planet, cockroaches will survive. Imagine what that would mean for future life evolving to fill available niches."

There might be several positives: Cockroaches don't seem to be malicious, for example. If they hold grudges or hatred for any of their fellows, moreover, they don't do so for long. They apparently don't hide their identities under pseudonyms. And there is no record of any cockroach ever establishing or participating on an internet message board.

Moksha DanielPeterson • a minute ago
Assuming cockroaches evolved in such a way as to achieve sentience, it is an interesting question of what type of culture they would develop. Would they be cooperative and supportive of one another or would they develop competitive natures? If the later, would they at some point have a need for conflict resolution and anger management?

I've wished that you and Scratch could sit down and agree on some détente for some time. Physiologists tell us that negative emotions have a long term deleterious effect. That is why I believe releasing anger is good for us. Sometimes we can act out anger in our own bailiwick, such as the nasty outbursts found in threads throughout the net. Sometimes those at odds can meet for the express purpose of seeking to soothe a conflict. I wish that could happen.

by the way, I have suggested this same thing to Dr. Scratch. The cross is in the ballpark.

[Temp. Admin.]

Thank you for your response, Doctor Scratch. I appreciate your having taken the time.

Note also that I was careful to use the words "regarding beliefs outside the Mormon umbrella." :-)

[Doctor Scratch]

Here is something that Dr. Peterson should reflect upon. I took a look at the list of items/links he supplied--i.e., the stuff that is supposed to convince everyone that he's never been nasty towards other people's religious beliefs, and what I have to say in response is this: suppose that Dr. Peterson was horribly racist towards a black person. Suppose, for example, he posted an image of a lynching as a "joke," and got called out on it, and was accused of being a racist. And then suppose that, after that, he went and did 30 things that were nice towards black folks. Does that undo his original racist act?

I know how fond Dr. Peterson is of this type of moralistic genuflection--it's a staple of Sic et Non. So maybe he'll enlighten us about the principle of forgiveness, and why--even if someone is a habitual offender--we ought to extend the gift of forgiveness to them.

[Doctor Scratch]

Thank you for your response, Doctor Scratch. I appreciate your having taken the time.

Note also that I was careful to use the words "regarding beliefs outside the Mormon umbrella." :-)

Any time, Dr. Shades, and of course I noticed. You are always careful with your choice of words. But Dr. Peterson *has* been quite nasty towards religious beliefs "outside the Mormon umbrella," including the Calvinism and Judaism examples I gave. And if we take the Mopologists at face value that atheism and ex-Mormonism are "religions," then it only gets worse.