Midgley Announces an Essay on “the silly and disgusting things” that BYU Admin Did to John Gee

[Doctor Scratch]

This must rank amongst the worst “articles” that Interpreter has ever posted to its blog. What an embarrassment. The only thing going for it is that it’s uncharacteristically short.

And yet… Like Tom and others, I can’t help but wonder if portions of this were censored. It wouldn’t surprise me if the piece was “toned down” due to the ramping up of production efforts for the new movie.

If so, that represents a huge vindication for Blair Hodges, who had his own FARMS essay personally edited by Midgley (against Hodges’s protests) in order to make it more aggressive.

[drumdude]

Hopefully the book ends up for free online somewhere eventually, so that its footnotes can be thoroughly scrutinized.

When the book was published, several outlets pointed out problems with his citations:

Leave Social Science to the Social Scientists
When researchers fail to properly report nuance, make strong claims based on limited reading, and fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of social research, they can cause real harm. In this case, the marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals can perpetuate the very abuses that Gee shows concern for, given that anti-LGBTQ+ bias appears to be a significant correlate of their victimization. Stigmatizing abuse victims may generate significant psychological, physical, social, and developmental harm. Perhaps we should take President Oaks’ advice to heart—both as scholars and readers.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/08/23/ ... expertise/

It was quite a shock to me that an Egyptologist might not be the best scholar to write a book on contemporary social issues.

[Tom]

I hope that Dr. Midgley uses his review essay to criticize the “new direction” Maxwell Institute and those who were involved in the 2012 coup and to highlight the severe “scolding” that Elder Holland delivered to the Institute in 2018. I assume he’ll criticize Jana Riess.

I will award bonus points to Dr. Midgley if he mentions any of the following: Fawn Brodie, Thomas Jefferson, Marjorie Newton, D. Michael Quinn, Marvin Hill, Dialogue, Sunstone, the New Mormon History, remembrance in the Book of Mormon, “no middle ground,” his decision in 1980 to become a full time defender of the faith, apologetics, Peter Novick, his showdown with Stephen Crary at Brown, becoming a Saint, Grant Palmer, Signature Books, Gina Colvin, his love for the Maori, his missions to New Zealand, the boy he sucker punched in junior high, anti-Mormon ministries, the acids of modernity, Martin Marty, Hugh Nibley, Sterling McMurrin, or secular humanism.

Additional bonus points if his review is at least 20 pages long, if he uses the words bizarre or insist, or if he claims that he coined the term cultural Mormonism.

I award points to Dr. Midgley for courageously criticizing Jana Riess (calling her a “howler”) and for outlining his curious formula for becoming a Saint. Otherwise, Dr. Midgley left a lot of points on the table. What might have been.

[Tom]

If I have counted correctly, Saving Faith has 1,052 footnotes, and at least half of these draw upon contemporary social science scholarship central to the issues addressed in the book.

Following footnotes in LDS apologetics is a well traveled road out of the church.

The number doesn’t matter, the quality does. More often than not the apologists completely misrepresent the source material.

One of these days I’ll check what the other portion of the 1,052 footnotes draw upon.

[Marcus]

Following footnotes in LDS apologetics is a well traveled road out of the church.

The number doesn’t matter, the quality does. More often than not the apologists completely misrepresent the source material.

One of these days I’ll check what the other portion of the 1,052 footnotes draw upon.

I'll make an educated guess. 250 from the Interpreter and 270 from hmself. Because who else would you quote in a fake social science book but a bogus journal and an Egyptologist?

[Moksha]

I award points to Dr. Midgley for courageously criticizing Jana Riess (calling her a “howler”) and for outlining his curious formula for becoming a Saint. Otherwise, Dr. Midgley left a lot of points on the table. What might have been?

Dr. Scratch's question of what may have been censored is good. Were excessively rabid claims taken out to make this article less offensive to the BYU Department of Religion which removed this book? I imagine they wanted to honor the Professor with the publication of this article but were cautious of the blowback from allowing him to go full Midgley.

[Marcus]

After reading the review, i get the sense Midgley didn't actually read the whole book. He did a Peterson and quoted from the preface, and then he discussed only one section of one chapter of the ten.

[Philo Sofee]

After reading the review, i get the sense Midgley didn't actually read the whole book. He did a Peterson and quoted from the preface, and then he discussed only one section of one chapter of the ten.

That is, after all the agenda of post-FARMS critique... Give it the minimalisation you can claiming it is maximalisation and go for the WIN!