Midgley, keeping tabs on ?????the enemy?????

[_MsJack]

Still, being cyber-stalked is a very odd feeling. Perhaps I should be flattered that they consider me that important.

Not really. They enjoy picking on perceived low-hanging fruit.

They'll respond to a thousand Kristis and Dee Jay Nelsons before they'll even think about touching a Robert Ritner or an EAllusion or a MrStakhanovite. So their attention to you doesn't automatically mean you're important to them.

But, you have marshaled a Web forum that has given them a lot of trouble, and that isn't nothing.

(Also, if you were a woman, the feeling of being cyber-stalked would be quite normal by now. Welcome to the party, pal.)

[_Jersey Girl]

I was actually offended the apologists said I was every bit like chapel Mormons. THE HELL!!!!

I was merely a casual observer, who make a file.

I given exactly no attention to "Dr. Shades."

Pretty darn sad.

Do you think it is dementia that has him imagining that several FairMormon members contributed to keeping a file on Dr. Shades’ in real life data?

No. It's real.

Uncovered!? Others?! SEVERAL OTHERS?? What on earth is wrong with these people???

Business as usual, I'm afraid.

And now on this very thread, where Midgley apparently has really fooled himself into believing that Dr. Shades from the very beginning, oh so long ago, has nefariously misrepresented himself as a Phd all along, pulls something out of the docket they have on Shades.

He had that nick long before any of us (with the possible exception of one) ever laid eyes on his screen name. Those people are ridiculous.

Either way Peterson doesn’t seem to think it’s necessary to protect his friend from himself, but maybe someone should ask him about it.

In my observation, Peterson protects himself.

[_Dr. Shades]

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

I was on the FAIR email private list when you came out with this, and oh my GOD what a furor it caused for MONTHS!!!!!

BWAHAHAHA! Oh my gosh, that absolutely MAKES MY DAY. Why? Because it's proof positive that they themselves recognize it as a valid issue, as opposed to their impotent and deceptive claims that it's an empty theory with no merit.

Discussions galore, worries, and all kinds of poobah.

This is gold. Pure gold.

There is simply no way in hell John Q. Mormon is anything similar to sophisticated, well read, intelligent internet Mormon man!

The clincher, though, is that God, through His mouthpieces, is continually and constantly teaching His Mormon disciples to adopt all of these unsophisticated, non-well read, and unintelligent (by Internet Mormon standards) beliefs.

Put another way, if Chapel Mormons are rubes, it's only because they took God seriously when He, through His prophets, taught them to be that way.

Still, being cyber-stalked is a very odd feeling. Perhaps I should be flattered that they consider me that important.

Not really. They enjoy picking on perceived low-hanging fruit.

Ahh, I see. But alas, I'm 100% capable of picking right back.

But, you have marshaled a Web forum that has given them a lot of trouble, and that isn't nothing.

And my offer still stands for any of them to create an account here and rebuke us all directly if they have the guts.

(Also, if you were a woman, the feeling of being cyber-stalked would be quite normal by now. Welcome to the party, pal.)

Oh wow. That's very, very disturbing. Although your experience is obviously valid, I'm going to pray that it was an outlier, and that few other women are forced to undergo anything similar.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This post is a classic:

There's no such thing as "Mopologists," Shades.

That's a term, I know, that is favored over at your obsessive-hate site in order to demonize its chosen targets. But it's not welcome here.

I've been a target of your board's viciousness for its entire existence -- what is it? about a decade and a half now? -- and my patience for such malicious imbecility is distinctly limited.

And, please, don't feign outrage over supposed "files" or "dossiers." The hypocrisy of the pretense would be unendurable.

LOL! Gee, I'd say that there is at least as good a chance that Mopologists exist as there is that Nephites used to exist. What's funny is that his reason for arguing that Mopologists don't exist is because it's an "insult" (it's actually not intended to be that way: it's meant to be a term of clarification--i.e., to help people see the differences between, e.g., Grant Hardy, Richard Bushman, Teryl Givens, David Bokovoy, and Spencer Fluhman vs. DCP, Midgley, Gee, Kiwi57, Scott Gordon, and so on). If that is the grounds for demonstrating that something doesn't exist, well, then, I guess "anti-Mormons" don't exist either, eh?

His final line is remarkable in the extent of its mendacity. Nowhere can he point to critics doing anything *remotely* like what the Mopologists and the Church itself have been up to. Let him point to a single website that rises to the level of a SHIELDS--to say nothing of the "networked" calculations of something like the FAIR list.

[_Gadianton]

"Mopologist" is simply a contraction of "Mormon" "Apologist" much like "Anti-Mormon" describes someone who is opposed to Mormonism. But then, as the Mopologists have clarified, being "Anti-Mormon" is exactly like being an "Anti-Semite" with all the allusions to Hitler they can conjure, especially as shown in a particularly unhinged outburst posted on a particular blog that invented really uncomfortable examples of anti-Semitic hate language, that was supposedly representative of what they thought Mormon critics were being like. Pretty repulsive stuff, and to appropriate such tragedy to paint themselves, none of whom has every actually suffered at all, as victims, is repulsive.

Perhaps the word "Mopologist" could be reconsidered if they truly dislike it so much, but first, they'd need to apologize for all the many incidents of using the word "anti-Mormon" in order to demonize any critic.

[_Philo Sofee]

"Mopologist" is simply a contraction of "Mormon" "Apologist" much like "Anti-Mormon" describes someone who is opposed to Mormonism. But then, as the Mopologists have clarified, being "Anti-Mormon" is exactly like being an "Anti-Semite" with all the allusions to Hitler they can conjure, especially as shown in a particularly unhinged outburst posted on a particular blog that invented really uncomfortable examples of anti-Semitic hate language, that was supposedly representative of what they thought Mormon critics were being like. Pretty repulsive stuff, and to appropriate such tragedy to paint themselves, none of whom has every actually suffered at all, as victims, is repulsive.

Perhaps the word "Mopologist" could be reconsidered if they truly dislike it so much, but first, they'd need to apologize for all the many incidents of using the word "anti-Mormon" in order to demonize any critic.

Perhaps we could call them then pettyologists.

[_Lemmie]

Bumping this thread, in light of Peterson’s denials that “files” are kept:

... (Same link):

Louis Midgley Dr. Shades 3 hours ago

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."

I was merely a casual observer, who make a file. Except for that one instance when a very nervous and hesitant "Dr. Shades" had that conversation with Richard Anderson, I given exactly no attention to "Dr. Shades." Until he began making cameo appearances of Dan's blog, and sent a bunch of fake doctors and fake professors to opine and/or up-vote what is clearly false and evil stuff being posted by critics on Dan's blog.

Uncovered!? Others?! SEVERAL OTHERS?? What on earth is wrong with these people???

[_Fence Sitter]

Uncovered!? Others?! SEVERAL OTHERS?? What on earth is wrong with these people???

They believe they are defending Mormonism. They are not, they are defending an authoritarian out of touch leadership that has recently thrown them under the bus.
In this case what Dr Midgley admits to doing is not much more than what the Church itself admits to doing. The quote below is from a 1992 1st Presidency statement defending these J.Edgar Hoover like tactics. Notice that the current prophet was part of that committee.

"The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.

We have learned that the last line about the Church not directing or imposing disciplinary action is a lie.

The relevant D&C section:

This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised restitution of all things.' Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants:"And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them. . . .

Honestly, when one is stuck inside the Mormon box, it is difficult to see how strange and, as in this case, unacceptable, such behavior looks to others. I mean, can't you just see Christ instructing two of his apostles to gather information on His followers or even His enemies?

#notwhatJesuswoulddo

Interesting side question. I wonder what the files in the SCMC have on these apologists?

[_moksha]

I wonder what the files in the SCMC have on these apologists?

No idea what is in them, but they are probably filed under Agents, Sleeper Agents, and Kooks.

[_Dr LOD]

I wonder what the files in the SCMC have on these apologists?

No idea what is in them, but they are probably filed under Agents, Sleeper Agents, and Kooks.

Here is what I know. To some they are seen as faithful warriors of the faith, others see them as a "necessary evil," and others see them as a liability. Over the past few years the opinion has shifted towards the latter.