Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21650
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

You wanna know how Moksha is a man par excellence? Coffee-flavored ice cream. My Lord my God coffee-flavored ice cream is a delight. I feel genuinely forlorn at the thought there are people who avoid that forbidden creamy deliciousness. Sad. :'(

- Doc

User avatar
Dr LOD
Teacher
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Dr LOD »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:35 pm
You wanna know how Moksha is a man par excellence?
Coffee-flavored ice cream. My Lord my God coffee-flavored ice cream is a delight.
I feel genuinely forlorn at the thought there are people who avoid that forbidden creamy deliciousness. Sad. :'(

- Doc
Ha my kids love the stuff. You should have seen the look on some Mormon Royalty grand-kids that we were on vacation with,when my ten year old orders a big huge scoop of premium coffee ice cream.

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Dr Moore »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:41 pm
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.
Doctor, while I have not yet earned the prestigious Cassius deerskin hat and matching smoking vest, I feel compelled to offer a different point of view on your theory. I would have to disagree strongly with the notion of imposing the word "hate" on anyone who doesn't say "I hate XXXX," or something that overwhelmingly implies that emotion, such as "all XXX are disgusting pieces of filth and deserve to die."

Now you may have good reason to feel that so-and-so hates this or that, and their actions may be functionally equivalent to those of a person who actually does hate this or that. But that confusion is, in the mind of Mopologists, entirely the fault of the hearer, and why most Mormons feel so awfully misunderstood. Intent isn't everything, but it matters a lot to at least one party!

For instance, history already judges Mormons to be a religion full of people who hate blacks and gays. And why not? The policies and teachings of church leaders and of the institution itself, together with the absence of any at-scale internal revolt on either issue (except possibly the recent BYU protests, which sadly ended abruptly and without a satisfactory end due to Covid-19), surely makes all Mormons guilty of hating blacks (racism) and gays (bigotry). Right?

Ask any 10 Mormons, however, today, in 2008, or in 1977, and you would likely hear the same things: violent objection to being called a racist or a bigot. Arguing in terms of "you must hate XXXX based on YYYY action" misses the point entirely. With Mormonism, some things can never be questioned. Among them, that the Mormon has "good, Christlike intentions" is surely near the top of that list -- right beneath belief in prophetic and priesthood authority.

I digress. It's been said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. I suggest that it is through that lens that the fallout of Mopologetics can be better understood.

For me, it has been clear since my first encounters with Mopologetic "defenders" and their writings that their "work" is done with precious little regard, indeed apathy, for the feelings of those deemed to pose a credible threat to the church's narrative on two primary issues:
a. Joseph Smith as restoration prophet
b. priesthood authority distinguishing the Church as God's only true and living church on earth

So for members, the distinction between "friend" and "enemy" is clearly defined: have you crossed one of two unacceptable lines: (a) devotion to sustaining the brethren, and (b) faith in restored priesthood. Any other questions and doubts are welcome! Cross those lines, and permission is given to persecute the person with apathy, because God justifies the intent as love for the kingdom and, in a twist of irony, a smug, judgmental love for the lost soul.

That apathy for the feelings of others exists because defenders of the faith feel entitled to carte blanche authorization to defend "at all hazards."

For those so inclined, the affirmative outcome is most easily achieved by diminishing the "other" to elevate the "inside" -- by the way, the very definition of bullying. And so it is totally predictable that a subset of Mormon apologists would resort to the kinds of denigration, insult, character assassination, stalking and scheming against that have been hallmarks of the worst of Mopologetics. To be more blunt: Louis MiIdgley and his ilk are bullies, but they're not doing it out of hatred. Bullying is just an excusable byproduct of weaknesses in the flesh, justified by their mandate to elevate the kingdom (from God) and to do so via scholarly means (from BYU). What else would you expect, given the setup?

In this framework, one has to look with admiration at the Mormon apologists who have resisted the temptation to denigrate or bully enemies, and instead opted to remain positive and uplifting in the face of criticism and doubt.

Why is there no Joel Osteen of Mopologetics?

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22502
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by moksha »

Dr Moore wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:47 pm
Why is there no Joel Osteen of Mopologetics?
Because Midgley and Kiwi would jump on him and club him senseless?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Moore wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:47 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:41 pm
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.
Doctor, while I have not yet earned the prestigious Cassius deerskin hat and matching smoking vest, I feel compelled to offer a different point of view on your theory. I would have to disagree strongly with the notion of imposing the word "hate" on anyone who doesn't say "I hate XXXX," or something that overwhelmingly implies that emotion, such as "all XXX are disgusting pieces of filth and deserve to die."

Now you may have good reason to feel that so-and-so hates this or that, and their actions may be functionally equivalent to those of a person who actually does hate this or that. But that confusion is, in the mind of Mopologists, entirely the fault of the hearer, and why most Mormons feel so awfully misunderstood. Intent isn't everything, but it matters a lot to at least one party!

For instance, history already judges Mormons to be a religion full of people who hate blacks and gays. And why not? The policies and teachings of church leaders and of the institution itself, together with the absence of any at-scale internal revolt on either issue (except possibly the recent BYU protests, which sadly ended abruptly and without a satisfactory end due to Covid-19), surely makes all Mormons guilty of hating blacks (racism) and gays (bigotry). Right?

Ask any 10 Mormons, however, today, in 2008, or in 1977, and you would likely hear the same things: violent objection to being called a racist or a bigot. Arguing in terms of "you must hate XXXX based on YYYY action" misses the point entirely. With Mormonism, some things can never be questioned. Among them, that the Mormon has "good, Christlike intentions" is surely near the top of that list -- right beneath belief in prophetic and priesthood authority.

I digress. It's been said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. I suggest that it is through that lens that the fallout of Mopologetics can be better understood.

For me, it has been clear since my first encounters with Mopologetic "defenders" and their writings that their "work" is done with precious little regard, indeed apathy, for the feelings of those deemed to pose a credible threat to the church's narrative on two primary issues:
a. Joseph Smith as restoration prophet
b. priesthood authority distinguishing the Church as God's only true and living church on earth

So for members, the distinction between "friend" and "enemy" is clearly defined: have you crossed one of two unacceptable lines: (a) devotion to sustaining the brethren, and (b) faith in restored priesthood. Any other questions and doubts are welcome! Cross those lines, and permission is given to persecute the person with apathy, because God justifies the intent as love for the kingdom and, in a twist of irony, a smug, judgmental love for the lost soul.

That apathy for the feelings of others exists because defenders of the faith feel entitled to carte blanche authorization to defend "at all hazards."

For those so inclined, the affirmative outcome is most easily achieved by diminishing the "other" to elevate the "inside" -- by the way, the very definition of bullying. And so it is totally predictable that a subset of Mormon apologists would resort to the kinds of denigration, insult, character assassination, stalking and scheming against that have been hallmarks of the worst of Mopologetics. To be more blunt: Louis MiIdgley and his ilk are bullies, but they're not doing it out of hatred. Bullying is just an excusable byproduct of weaknesses in the flesh, justified by their mandate to elevate the kingdom (from God) and to do so via scholarly means (from BYU). What else would you expect, given the setup?

In this framework, one has to look with admiration at the Mormon apologists who have resisted the temptation to denigrate or bully enemies, and instead opted to remain positive and uplifting in the face of criticism and doubt.

Why is there no Joel Osteen of Mopologetics?
You make a number of provocative and persuasive points here, Dr. Moore. You're right that "hate" is the incorrect word (sort of: I confess that it was partly intended as tongue-in-cheek: you know, like "Dr. Shades's Hate Board." Do they really think that? Or is it an exaggeration? Or are they trying to play on the ambiguity of the matter?) But it doesn't matter: if we can be more precise, then we ought to be.

I think you're right that the Mopologists don't care about others' feelings (I don't know that I'd use the word "apathy," though), hence the copious examples in this thread of disregard or outright contempt for others' religious beliefs. I do think you're correct that some of this has to do with their sense of entitlement to "carte blanche authorization to defend 'at all hazards,'" hence their very favorite GA quote: "No uncontested slam dunks." Some of it is also cultural: there has always been a sense of the locker room or the frat house in the Mopologists' behavior. They like making fun of what they perceive to be the weak and the lame. It's like the cruel jock at any high school who thought it was funny to spit on the kid with a lisp. (Remember DCP's quip, "Stupid books deserve to be ridiculed"? Well, the Mopologists extended that aphorism to people.) This has mellowed quite a bit over the years, though you can still clearly see it in their interactions with Gemli. *I* don't think Gemli is "lame or weak," but they do, hence their sort of gang mentality in the way they interact with him. This seems to happen pretty much every Sunday, oddly enough.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Symmachus »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:32 pm
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.....

....You make a number of provocative and persuasive points here, Dr. Moore. You're right that "hate" is the incorrect word (sort of: I confess that it was partly intended as tongue-in-cheek: you know, like "Dr. Shades's Hate Board." Do they really think that? Or is it an exaggeration? Or are they trying to play on the ambiguity of the matter?) But it doesn't matter: if we can be more precise, then we ought to be.
Whether it is hatred or something close to it, there certainly is a discernible difference in how Peterson and his apologists handle disagreements with other Mormons when seen against their disagreements with other religious traditions. Snarky comments here or there about the Trinity or paid ministry or something to me don't rise to the level of hate or anything approaching it. Certainly, Peterson has has an abiding respect for Islam. Indeed, I would say that FARMS-style apologists pretend to a fluency in religious traditions, which they hold as a mark of intellectual distinction.

In comparison to that, I don't even detect grudging respect for faithful Mormons who happen to think Lehi went to California rather than Costa Rica, let alone liberal Mormons, obviously. If there is any hatred, surely it is aimed in that direction. There is nothing atypical in that, though: Bolsheviks burned with a hatred for the Social Democrats and the Mensheviks that was much hotter than the cool disdain they felt for the Kadets and Constitutionalists; staffers at the New York Times raged against James Bennet but probably don't even know who John Podhoretz is (not that we would expect them to know very much in the first place).
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22502
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:32 pm
Some of it is also cultural: there has always been a sense of the locker room or the frat house in the Mopologists' behavior. They like making fun of what they perceive to be the weak and the lame. It's like the cruel jock at any high school who thought it was funny to spit on the kid with a lisp. (Remember DCP's quip, "Stupid books deserve to be ridiculed"? Well, the Mopologists extended that aphorism to people.)
Those you call "Mopologists" are substantively different than the general population of Mormons. "Mopologists" would never bring you a plate of cookies. While real-life might assign them to the pool of clerk-typists, they would dream of being snipers and demolition experts and that is their approach to religion.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Dr Moore »

People tend not to remember things they don’t care about.

I suppose this is why the Mopologists have a selective memory when it comes to perceived offenses against others. They simply don’t care.

They do care deeply about the “scholarship” points, however loose or unscientific, that they contribute to the corpus of brute force defense.

And when someone offends a Mopologist, well suddenly the eidetic kicks into overdrive.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

It would seem that there is a wider discussion under way about whether or not Mopologists are respectful towards others' religious beliefs. Just check out this latest entry on "Sic et Non":
DCP wrote:Quite a few years ago — I wish that I could find the actual discussion, but I no longer remember where or exactly when it was — I entered into an online conversation on a Jewish message board about the Latter-day Saint practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. (A controversy had recently flared about such baptisms having apparently been performed on behalf of Jewish victims of Hitler’s Holocaust.) One person, who has been monitoring whatever I do and say over the past fifteen or so, keeps extensive dossiers on me for decontextualized and distorted weaponizing against me whenever he feels the need (i.e., pretty much daily), and he is using those dossiers now to demonstrate my contempt for non-LDS faiths and, specifically, my anti-Semitic disdain for Jews. One of the props that he uses to make his point is a comment that I still remember making in the course of that online conversation. A Jewish interlocutor had accused Latter-day Saints of believing that Jews cannot be saved “on their own.” I replied that he was correct. And this, it is said, illustrates my hatred for Jews and Judaism.
Wait a second now, Dr. Peterson. I'm confused as to whom you're talking about here. If you are referring to *me*, my complaint has always circled around your phrase, "Jews have few friend in the world," which you used in the context of this discussion. I have always understood your comment as a kind of "threat"/"taunt"--something along the lines of, "You Jews better shut up about us baptizing your dead relatives, 'cause if you don't, we won't support you!" Kind of a "religious camaraderie" blackmail, if you will. Whatever the case may be, this was Peterson's initial salvo, in full:
Dr. Peterson wrote:Some very quick observations from a believing member of the so-called Mormon Church:

(1)

To Rabbi Hier's remark that "It is sacrilegious for the Mormon faith to desecrate [Simon Wiesenthal's] memory by suggesting that Jews on their own are not worthy enough to receive G-ds’ eternal blessing," I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."

It's a fundamental Christian belief that nobody is.

(2)

I don't believe that I should attempt to dictate Rabbi Hier's theology. Likewise, I don't believe that he should attempt to dictate mine.

(3)

For reasons perhaps best known to her, Helen Radkey hates my Church, and is always seeking to do it damage.

(4)

The Church cannot realistically be expected to control what individual members do in terms of submitting names for temple work. It can control what information it offers and encourage or discourage certain things, but it cannot systematically patrol all name-submissions to make sure that they're not Jewish or that those who bore the names didn't spend time in a concentration camp.

(5)

Systematically barring work for "Jewish names" would bar many seemingly Jewish names that are, in fact, not Jewish.

(6)

Systematically barring work for Jews that we Latter-day Saints regard as salvific would itself be an act of racist discrimination.

(7)

Systematically barring work for Jews would be an act of injustice towards Mormons with Jewish relatives (e.g., my wife).

(8)

It strikes me as odd that Rabbi Hier and many Jews seem to grant the efficacy of vicarious temple service. I would have expected them to simply brush it aside as, at best, well-intentioned mumbo jumbo.

(9)

I'm not sure why some Jews appear to be offended by Mormon temple service on behalf of Jews. Jews have precious few friends around the world. They should not be seeking to alienate Mormons, who are deeply philosemitic. Is it really not relevant that Mormons typically treat living Jews well, and are, by and large, enthusiastic supporters of Israel?

(10)

If somebody were praying for my conversion, or lighting candles on my behalf, or seeking to baptize me by proxy into some other faith, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I would most likely regard it as an act of intended kindness, however I felt about the faith being "offered" to me.

I'm reminded of a story that I was told many years ago, about Joseph Fielding Smith, a Mormon apostle who ultimately served in the early 1970s as the overall president of the Church, and who was anything but an ecumenist or a theological liberal.

It seems, if the story is true, that his daughter went to Holy Cross Hospital (a Roman Catholic institution) in Salt Lake City to have a baby. There were complications, and it was feared for a short time that the baby might die. So, as good Catholics are wont to do in such cases, the nurses baptized the baby.

Elder Smith's daughter was very upset when she eventually learned of the baptism, and expressed her concern to her father.

"Don't worry, dear," he chuckled. "It'll wash off."

I'm sure he saw the baptism as a kindly, well-intended action performed by faithful people whose faith he didn't share. That's all.

I suppose that he could have huffed and puffed and screeched that it was an insult to make his grandbaby a Catholic. But he didn't believe that it was an insult. And he didn't believe that it had made his grandchild into a Roman Catholic.

(11)

My father participated, as a member of the 11th Armored Division, in the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Mauthausen, Austria -- the camp in which Simon Wiesenthal was a prisoner. It was a life-transforming experience for my father. His specialty was aerial-reconnaissance photo-interpretation, which was in relatively little demand at the very conclusion of the war, and so one of his duties after the camp's liberation was to photographically document Nazi crimes there. He organized a display of those photographs in the city square of nearby Linz, as an early effort at de-Nazification of the populace, under the title of "Nazi-Kultur." (They are unspeakably horrific and gruesome.) My brother and I have been preparing a complete set of copies of those photographs for donation to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

I find it deeply ironic, in that light, that my father's, my brother's, and my faith is now being depicted by certain rabblerousers as an insult to the memory of Simon Wiesenthal.

(12)

I hope that Jews, of all people, will be very careful not to entertain the kind of religious hatred and bigotry that some will undoubtedly attempt to inflame over this issue (and that is already evident in some of the comments by other posters above).
Looking at this, I see, in point (9), that the quote is actually "Jews have precious few friends in the world." I actually think that I was doing Prof. P a favor by accidentally omitting the word "precious." (Can it still be a "favor" if it was accidental?) In any event--maybe it's just because so much time has passed--but this strikes me as an extraordinarily clumsy attempt at "interfaith dialogue." Peterson was always terrible at it: he was constantly pissing people off, and that still hasn't changed.

In any event, I still intend to do my good deed for the day by helping Dr. Peterson to find the blog that he was looking for. This is it:

http://tracingthetribe.blogspot.com/200 ... nthal.html

Many of the commentators' names have been changed to say "Anonymous," but it's quite clear that DCP participated--a fact made obvious both by his writing style, and because, at at least one point, somebody calls him "Danny Boy."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Lemmie »

Wow. The comments on that blog entry were very clear regarding the contempt created by Peterson and his approach:
Daniel Peterson belongs to a cult. He lies when it's convenient for him. The Mormon cult was caught with its hand in the cookie jar about 10 years ago when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton found out her father, a minister, was baptized after his death. It was found out at that time that Jewish holocaust survivors, and some of the perpetrators of the holocaust, were also baptized after death. An agreement was reached whereby the baptisms would all be canceled. This hasn't happened, and once again, the Mormons have lied about baptizing holocaust victims and survivors.

One need only remind Mr. Peterson of his cult's 11th article of faith which says, in short, "We're entitled to worship as we please, and so are you." Well, that turns out to be a lie as well, doesn't it, Mr. Peterson?
and

Mr Peterson,

Your comments here simply show the uncouth nature of members of the Mormon Church. Jews do not need Christ to be saved. God saved them himself as they are His chosen people. Gentiles may need a Christ but not the Jews. Jesus does not meet the criteria of a Jewish Meshiach. The quotes from the Tanakh that are taken out of context do not show that he is the "annointed one" of Israel. So your salvific rites are an affront to anyone of Jewish descent.

As to people hating your Church, people have good reason to. One is that the Church thinks it owns truth. Second, your Church has ruined many peoples' lives. Gays, lesbians, Mountain Meadow Massacre, polygamy, etc. And the Church will not leave people alone who want nothing to do with it anymore.

Mr Peterson, look carefully at your religion and really try and see how it is an offense to people. Your mythological beliefs and practices are an affront to many people. Your church is not a restoration of the Church that Jesus' followers set up after his death. And for you to say that Mr Wiesenthal's family should be greatful that your Church is doing this for him "is" an affront and against decency.
Peterson, however, was as tone deaf then as he still is:
Peterson:

....I hope that Jews, of all people, will be very careful not to entertain the kind of religious hatred and bigotry that some will undoubtedly attempt to inflame over this issue (and that is already evident in some of the comments by other posters above).
Unbelievable.

And somehow, Peterson summarizes his horrible comments as

A Jewish interlocutor had accused Latter-day Saints of believing that Jews cannot be saved “on their own.” I replied that he was correct. And this, it is said, illustrates my hatred for Jews and Judaism.
“And this.” Lying by omission is still a lie, Peterson. But you have taught Midgley well.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Lemmie »

This deserves repeating today:

Dr. Peterson;

Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)is continually crying about persecution and discrimination. I have recently read an article which claimed Mormon persecution in Ohio and Nauvoo was the Mormon “Holocaust.” Last night I talked to a young missionary who complained of discrimination because Mormon servicemen did not have Mormon services on a military base which was being called up. The have a base Chaplin who gave Christian services, but not specifically Mormon. The discrimination was specifically against Mormons. They did not have Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, Jewish or any other services, but the discrimination was against Mormons.

Mormons are offensive people. The pompous attitude about baptisms for the dead is disrespectful of other cultures and other religions. The idea of a Mormon Holocaust is an affront to every Jewish person, and pretty much every humanitarian in the world. The Mormons killed far more people at Mountain Meadows that the number of Mormons killed in Ohio and Nauvoo. Brigham Young personally killed far more Mormons with his hand cart debacle than were ever killed through persecution. I could give you an exact number for the “Mormon Holocaust”, but my recollection is far less than 200 people.

Having missionaries pounding on doors is disrespectful. Trying to push your brand of “TRUTH” on people is disrespectful. Not telling people the whole truth about Mormon teachings before they are baptized is not only disrespectful, it is dishonest. If there is any persecution against Mormons, it is well deserved. They have no boundaries and no manners. The disrespect you have shown in your posts is ample evidence of why Mormons are so disliked by others.


Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Lemmie »

One of us, I suspect!

Dr. Peterson's objection to the fact that other posters pretend "to suggest that their theological views ought to trump mine" is laughable given his earlier comment "I would respond that we Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews "are not worthy enough to receive G-d's eternal blessing" "on their own."

Peterson "unapologetically" states that his theological views trump everyone else's (they need Mormonism to receive God's eternal blessings), and then he acts self-righteously wounded when he gets back in kind.

Now you folks get a sense of the sort of drivel those of us who interact with Mormon apologists have to suffer through on a routine basis.

It is telling of Dr. Peterson's character that he believes his charging in here in a huff full of arrogance and condescension, and without a smidgeon of empathy, is actually helping Mormonism's cause. But don't be offended, he treats all of us unworthy to receive God's eternal blessings on our own the same way.


Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Lemmie »

Wow. This by Peterson reads like a threat:

I have not sought to personalize this "conversation," although I know the names and identities of at least two of those who have been posting here besides myself (and the employer of one of them). But it seems that others do want to make it personal. Nonetheless, I need to correct some assertions made about me here.

Yes, I'm "employed by the Mormon Church" in the indirect sense that I'm a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University, which is owned by the Church.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by I have a question »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:33 pm
It would seem that there is a wider discussion under way about whether or not Mopologists are respectful towards others' religious beliefs. Just check out this latest entry on "Sic et Non":
DCP wrote:Quite a few years ago — I wish that I could find the actual discussion, but I no longer remember where or exactly when it was — I entered into an online conversation on a Jewish message board about the Latter-day Saint practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. (A controversy had recently flared about such baptisms having apparently been performed on behalf of Jewish victims of Hitler’s Holocaust.) One person, who has been monitoring whatever I do and say over the past fifteen or so, keeps extensive dossiers on me for decontextualized and distorted weaponizing against me whenever he feels the need (i.e., pretty much daily), and he is using those dossiers now to demonstrate my contempt for non-LDS faiths and, specifically, my anti-Semitic disdain for Jews. One of the props that he uses to make his point is a comment that I still remember making in the course of that online conversation. A Jewish interlocutor had accused Latter-day Saints of believing that Jews cannot be saved “on their own.” I replied that he was correct. And this, it is said, illustrates my hatred for Jews and Judaism.
Wait a second now, Dr. Peterson. I'm confused as to whom you're talking about here. If you are referring to *me*, my complaint has always circled around your phrase, "Jews have few friend in the world," which you used in the context of this discussion. I have always understood your comment as a kind of "threat"/"taunt"--something along the lines of, "You Jews better shut up about us baptizing your dead relatives, 'cause if you don't, we won't support you!" Kind of a "religious camaraderie" blackmail, if you will. Whatever the case may be, this was Peterson's initial salvo, in full:
Dr. Peterson wrote:Some very quick observations from a believing member of the so-called Mormon Church:
Systematically barring work for "Jewish names" would bar many seemingly Jewish names that are, in fact, not Jewish.
Not allowing Mormons to misappropriate the names of Jewish people who died in the Holocaust simply because they were Jewish, so that they can be used to systematically and symbolically turn those Jewish people into Mormons is an act of racism against Mormons?

The Nazi's forcibly took those Jewish lives, and now Peterson thinks Mormon's should be automatically allowed, unchallenged, to take their faith?

Wow, just Wow.

And it doesn't matter what Peterson and his religion thinks it's meant by the symbolic posthumous baptism ("it's only an offer that they can accept or reject"), it's how the Jewish community see it - a posthumous conversion that is inherently anti-Semitic.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Lol:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I’ve now managed to locate the conversation (so to speak) about Holocaust victims and the Latter-day Saint practice of vicarious baptisms for the dead to which I alluded in yesterday’s post. It occurred on Tracing the Tribe: The Jewish Genealogy Blog, and it commenced on 17 December 2006. My participation there will serve to illustrate the old adage “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.” I post this not to rekindle discussion of the question of vicarious baptism and Holocaust victims, but for the sake of a minor bit of history (including personal history):
Gee whiz, can't bring himself to thank me for providing him with the link? And this is a purported follower of Christ? LOL.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Too much time, obviously. But it was Christmas vacation, and I was almost certainly taking breaks from reading student papers and grading final examinations. Having invested so much effort in the exchange, though, I’m not unhappy to have found it again and to make it available to any with a taste for the bizarre and the bitter. Although — I haven’t re-read it in detail yet — there might be places where I would change a formulation slightly, I stand by the position that I articulated there fourteen years ago.

Two observations:

Ever since this exchange, my Malevolent Stalker has suggested that I harbor anti-Semitism and disdain for Jews. He does so on the basis of my having written that “Latter-day Saints do, quite unapologetically, insist that Jews ‘are not worthy enough to receive G-d’s eternal blessing “on their own.”‘” I do not recall his ever including the sentence that follows immediately thereafter: “It’s a fundamental Christian belief that nobody is.”
"bizarre and bitter" indeed. And notice the choice of word here: "has suggested." Is that what I've "suggested"? Or, instead, have I presented the evidence and "suggested" that readers draw their own conclusions? What is to one say about this old exchange, after all? What does one say about the fact that Midgley openly describes Holocaust victims as having gone "up the stack" on "Sic et Non," and the proprietor does nothing about it? How should we judge an impudent teenager who mocks the Jewish wedding ritual? I think people should judge for themselves. If you want *my* actual take: I don't think that Dr. Peterson is an anti-Semite by any stretch of the imagination. But he is certainly callous, rude, and has a terrible habit of putting his foot in his own mouth. He's guilty of being a smart-assed kid. And he's guilty of being disrespectful towards Jewish beliefs. Is that the same thing as "anti-Semitism"? I would say "No." But, again: each person ought to judge for themselves.

As for the claim here that I zeroed in on the sentence he cites....Did I really do that? Perhaps I did. Does Dr. Peterson have evidence? A link perhaps? I'm betting that he doesn't. And if he *does*, does that mean he's keeping a "creepy dossier"?
DCP wrote:The other sentence that he’s repeatedly used to brand me as an anti-Jewish bigot over the past fourteen years is my observation that “Jews have precious few friends around the world.” He claims to believe that it was an anti-Semitic taunt and a threat.
That is correct. Look, it just isn't nice to tell Jews that they need to quit complaining about controversial proxy baptisms because they have "precious few friend in the world." The intention, as I understand it, is basically a threat, no? I.e., "If you don't quit complaining, you can count Mormons *OUT* as your friends!" Take that kind of thing to its logical conclusion. What do you think Professor Peterson envisions here? Suppose that Jewish people continue to raise the issue, and eventually that very last straw falls upon the camel's back. So, DCP and other Mormons like him withdraw their "friendship." Does that mean that they (i.e., the Mopologists) now look the other way when, e.g., a true anti-Semite shoots up a synagogue? Or defaces something with a swastika? Is that met with a shrug because the Jews wouldn't "shut up" about the proxy baptisms?

I'm sorry, but there is just no way to spin that comment so that it works out in Peterson's favor. He ought to try the one tactic he's never tried in his entire life: exercising some self reflection and just admitting that he was wrong.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Look at the type of commentary that Peterson's post attracts:
John Pack Lambert wrote:Many Jews suffer from baptismal phobia. They have irrational and unfounded fears of baptism. They also exhibit undeserved hatred towards Jews who embrace Christianity while tolerating as Jews militant atheists and people who dabble in Buddhism.

The hatred directed by some Jews against the organization Jews for Jesus, and Israel'silliberal laws against religious proselytizing bear this out.

Much of the rhetoric presenting the Holicaust as a religious instead of a racial persecution bears this out.

The Holocaust Museum in metro-Detroit presents Jews as much more religious as they were. The reality is many Jews in Europe were secular and in Germany both social and biological amalgamation were more common than many want to admit.

The American Jewish population did not fully come to view itself as a religion until the 1950s, when the tripartite idea of Catholc-Protestant-Jew was born. Before the 1950s American Jews much more saw themselves as an ethnic group and were not as religious as they would latter become.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Low-hanging fruit:
Wayfarer25 wrote:An enlightening article; thought provoking. It's interesting to me (and to me alone - I'm not proselyting) that as I've distanced myself from the LDS Church these past few years - I've spent a great deal more time thinking about, studying and trying to internalize the scope of God's Grace and Love. And, as I've done so, I've felt greater peace to my soul than I have for many, many years. While my opinion doesn't matter much (except to me) - when I was actively engaged with the church, it sure would have great to have more lessons, discussions and testimonies relating to God's Grace; which might have been healing to me - rather than the constant, mind numbing, soul crushing, "drive a nail through your head" - hammering about obedience; and following the prophet. I believe in and am thankful for God's Grace.
Louis Midgley wrote:The problem is that Wayfarer35 does not seem to me to have paid much if any real, close attention to the contents of the Latter-day Saint scriptures. I am confident that, if he had taken the Scriptures more seriously, he would have found the really good news about God's mercy, grace and love. The fact is that one simply cannot blame such thing as Sunday School lessons for not knowing the contents of the Scriptures. In our current situation, it is, however, a real problem for some to realize that obedience to God commandments is necessary for our having the Spirit of God with us continually. This is why Latter-day Saint renew covenants frequently, is it not?
John Pack Lambert wrote:It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your inability to even write its name correctly makes me doubt you ever understood it.
Lambert reminds me somewhat of Jskains.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6651
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Philo Sofee »

Louis Midgley wrote:
The problem is that Wayfarer35 does not seem to me to have paid much if any real, close attention to the contents of the Latter-day Saint scriptures. I am confident that, if he had taken the Scriptures more seriously, he would have found the really good news about God's mercy, grace and love. The fact is that one simply cannot blame such thing as Sunday School lessons for not knowing the contents of the Scriptures. In our current situation, it is, however, a real problem for some to realize that obedience to God commandments is necessary for our having the Spirit of God with us continually. This is why Latter-day Saint renew covenants frequently, is it not?
This dawdling old prick thinks that if someone comes to a different understanding of things than his almost celestial Elohim magisterial grasp that they haven't read the scriptures sufficiently. What a twattle. Does Midgley obey God's commandments? Any of them concerning loving others? I have seen for years his Pharisaical approach hypocritically applied to all others except him and his sidekick Dr. Daniel "Donald Trump" Peterson. You don't renew covenants to live by them you old crony, you go through the motions to get brownie points from Jesus. You Mormon Moron you have no clue about keeping covenants anymore than you grasp what the scriptures are about. So shut up already, I'm busy learning the truth from the scriptures, not your hypocritical pharisee approach to saying one thing, but doing the entire opposite. You have no credibility. Your real problem is you already think you are so righteous and right nothing you do or say is wrong. You are above the law of repentance in your own mind. The rest of us see you for what you are, all Mormon mouth, no reality to your supposed Gospel.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22502
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:36 pm
"If you don't quit complaining, you can count Mormons *OUT* as your friends!"
The Newsroom on Temple Square would certainly have big problems with that sentiment. The truth is, both of these groups need friends. Mutual respect and understanding is the best way to maintain that friendship.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3610
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr. Scratch says about DCP:
He ought to try the one tactic he's never tried in his entire life: exercising some self reflection and just admitting that he was wrong.
Sound advice. I'd also go one further and suggest that all the religious should do some self-reflection and humbly admit that their preferred religious brand is more based on tradition than reality and that all are guessing as to what lies beyond.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 4550
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by DoubtingThomas »

Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:08 pm
This deserves repeating today:

Not telling people the whole truth about Mormon teachings before they are baptized is not only disrespectful, it is dishonest. If there is any persecution against Mormons, it is well deserved. They have no boundaries and no manners. The disrespect you have shown in your posts is ample evidence of why Mormons are so disliked by others.

All religions do the same thing and Mormonism has a better history than most Christian religions.

Post Reply