Let me get this straight. In 2020, an Egyptologist publishes a book about sociology, but BYU thinks it is substandard or otherwise problematic and "pulls it from publication" (whatever that means).
[SNIP]
Meanwhile, Dr. Midgely spends three years writing book reviews about it, despite no expertise in sociology and no basis to judge the strength of the book's arguments, other than counting footnotes.
And this really here is the crux of the issue. If the book is as good as Dr. Midgley says it is, why not send it to sociology journals for review?
If the sociologists are too "woke" or "liberal" to give the book a fair hearing (which really shouldn't be the case---a good scholar should be able to say when a book is making a decent argument, even if they ultimately disagree with its conclusions), why not have a few LDS sociologists review it?
If the LDS sociologists want to stay away from it, and the BYU Religious Studies Center (which is, in fact, a very conservative, not-LGBTQ-affirming organization) wants to stay away from it, then it sounds like the book (or at least, parts of it) is the problem.
BA, Classics, Brigham Young University
MA, American Religious History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
PhD Student, Church History, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Marcus wrote:For Midgley to include the link in his footnote, but not be clear about the details, and then to conclude with this, below, is not scholarship in any way.
Right, the footnotes. I'm terrible at reading the footnotes and you've reminded me that the footnotes for apologists are often more revealing than the articles themselves. Indeed, his childish dismissal misrepresents the criticisms of Gee. If he feels those dismissals are phony, or just excuses, then he should make an actual case for why. see my next response for more on this.
Last edited by Gadianton on Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't know what's going on. This is turning out to be a real caper. If more intel is garnered, this episode may prove to be top 10 material.
Did Midgley delay because he wasn't ready or because Interpreter was shooting him down?
Is Midgley hedging because he suspects the brethren authorized the book to be pulled, or is he fully confident in his derision of the choice to pull it?
Did Midgely ever have a developed draft responding to all chapters in detail or is he just saying that?
Did Midgley trash a developed draft because he realized Gee was without defense, because Interpreter rejected, or for other reasons?
Is Midgley out of his depth and unaware of how bad Gee's work is, or is his poli-sci background close enough to other social sciences that he recognized problems with Gee's work and risks making himself look bad by defending the details?
There are more questions, but at this point I wouldn't be able to make a good guess at any of them. It's a logic problem that has exceeded my abilities, and I do look forward to the insights of others that may help unravel this caper.
I think this whole situation is too simple to demand a lot of effort and attention. Either John Gee respects modern sociology as a discipline, has mastered the scholarship, and has written a valuable contribution to it, or he does not and has not. I am OK with him not respecting sociology as a discipline. Just be honest about it. That's all I ask. I am not saying he hasn't been. I have not read the book.
But, here's the thing. I don't accept that everyone must live by idiosyncratic LDS or Christian rules. I would prefer to solve the problems of a pluralistic society by harnessing fields of study that are not about imposing the special rules of particular religious communities on everyone else.
I don't think John Gee agrees with that point of view. So what could John Gee possibly write that I would ultimately get on board with? What could Louis Midgley say to defend this work that I would agree with? Aside from acknowledging Gee's first amendment right to write what he wants, there is not much to agree with here. Gee does not have a right to be published by the LDS Church, BYU, or any other institution. He could always self-publish on Amazon, for heaven's sake.
This inadequate stand-in for a review by Midgley was published might just be an attempt to shut up the people who were repeatedly noting that Interpreter had not published a Midgley review of Gee's book. At this point, however, I am not sure how much I care about the finer points (guffaw) regarding the reasons this was published. Other than the fact that it looks like a wasted effort, what is worth saying about this "review"?
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I think this whole situation is too simple to demand a lot of effort and attention. Either John Gee respects modern sociology as a discipline, has mastered the scholarship, and has written a valuable contribution to it, or he does not and has not. I am OK with him not respecting sociology as a discipline. Just be honest about it. That's all I ask. I am not saying he hasn't been. I have not read the book.
But, here's the thing. I don't accept that everyone must live by idiosyncratic LDS or Christian rules. I would prefer to solve the problems of a pluralistic society by harnessing fields of study that are not about imposing the special rules of particular religious communities on everyone else.
I don't think John Gee agrees with that point of view. So what could John Gee possibly write that I would ultimately get on board with? What could Louis Midgley say to defend this work that I would agree with? Aside from acknowledging Gee's first amendment right to write what he wants, there is not much to agree with here. Gee does not have a right to be published by the LDS Church, BYU, or any other institution. He could always self-publish on Amazon, for heaven's sake.
This inadequate stand-in for a review by Midgley was published might just be an attempt to shut up the people who were repeatedly noting that Interpreter had not published a Midgley review of Gee's book. At this point, however, I am not sure how much I care about the finer points (guffaw) regarding the reasons this was published. Other than the fact that it looks like a wasted effort, what is worth saying about this "review"?
It just reads like some sort of half baked attempt to save face and circle the wagons around a friend and soldier in the mopologetic army.
At this point, however, I am not sure how much I care about the finer points (guffaw) regarding the reasons this was published.
You're a wise man, Reverend. Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a simpleton. I watched Mission Impossible Deadlock a few nights ago. It was better than I expected. However, the suspense surrounding this incomplete review is far more compelling to me. I care a great deal bout the "guffaw"; for me, it is intense and exciting. I'm at the edge of my seat.
Did Midgley trash a developed draft because he realized Gee was without defense, because Interpreter rejected, or for other reasons?
Even if Dr. Midgley is a dear friend, why would Dr. Peterson risk another "Joseph Smith Papers being called onto the carpet moment" (especially during the travel season) just so Midgley could display his uncontrolled rage? The BYU Religious Studies Center takes precedence over the Interpreter Foundation in the unwritten order of Church life.
You're a wise man, Reverend. Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a simpleton. I watched Mission Impossible Deadlock a few nights ago. It was better than I expected. However, the suspense surrounding this incomplete review is far more compelling to me. I care a great deal bout the "guffaw"; for me, it is intense and exciting. I'm at the edge of my seat.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
Did Midgley trash a developed draft because he realized Gee was without defense, because Interpreter rejected, or for other reasons?
Even if Dr. Midgley is a dear friend, why would Dr. Peterson risk another "Joseph Smith Papers being called onto the carpet moment" (especially during the travel season) just so Midgley could display his uncontrolled rage? The BYU Religious Studies Center takes precedence over the Interpreter Foundation in the unwritten order of Church life.
The more cynical interpretation of Gee's work is that he's standing in a boat with a gaping hole, staring into the hole itself while earnestly reassuring the other passengers that nothing's wrong.
