Part 1: The L-Skinny is Far, Far Greater....

[_Mister Scratch]

Perhaps it's you reading something into my post that isn't there.

And what is that? Especially given the rest of your reply?

I think the point, Harmony, is that DCP is madly waving his arms about in an attempt to distract attention away from the real fact of the matter: Namely, that Gary Novak produced an extremely embarrassing article which later had to be "revised" with the help of Lou Midgley. Whereas honest scholars like Clayton urge for a balanced historical approach, Novak and Midgley are clearly the "belligerents" that BKP called for in his "Mantle" talk.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think the point, Harmony, is that DCP is madly waving his arms about

LOL.

Namely, that Gary Novak produced an extremely embarrassing article which later had to be "revised" with the help of Lou Midgley.

"Embarrassing"? "Had to be 'revised'"?

In several ways, Scartch is the quintessential Shades-board poster: His assertions are unconstrained by any need for actual evidence, untethered to any direct knowledge or understanding of a situation. He floats freely in his black and gossipy world of hostile speculations -- seeing, as Gadianton put it with such pin-point ironic accuracy, the good in everyone.

Whereas honest scholars like Clayton urge for a balanced historical approach, Novak and Midgley are clearly the "belligerents" that BKP called for in his "Mantle" talk.

Scartch sympathizes with Jim Clayton rather than with Lou Midgley and Gary Novak. Ergo, there's a scandal in the Church. And, of course, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

[_Mister Scratch]

by the way: I should add that the actual Clayton essay is now available at 007's blog. The Clayton *Letter* was originally posted, but now readers can access the essay as well. (Note that the citations I listed towards the end of my OP were drawn from the essay, not the letter.)

[_harmony]

And what is that? Especially given the rest of your reply?

The fact is that I hadn't said anything about the content or implications of CK's post when you responded, except that his choice of names was "rhetorically interesting."

And I don't see where his post is "rhetorically interesting", which is why I think you're reading something into it that isn't there.

What do you think is "rhetorically interesting" about his post?

I'll just ignore the rest of your post, since it's only a sly dig at my reading ability and we both know you think you're all that and I'm not.

Now, I realize that paying attention to actual texts and actually knowing people isn't required, on this very strange message board, for one to discourse learnedly on the nature of those texts and the character of those people, so perhaps I should just drop the elementary point -- obvious in most other worlds -- that if a text doesn't say x, the text doesn't say x. Who cares?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think it's difficult to understand why CK would call Jim Clayton "Clayton."

Why do you think he chose to call Boyd Packer "Boyd" in the same sentence?

[_Mister Scratch]

Whereas honest scholars like Clayton urge for a balanced historical approach, Novak and Midgley are clearly the "belligerents" that BKP called for in his "Mantle" talk.

Scartch sympathizes with Jim Clayton rather than with Lou Midgley and Gary Novak. Ergo, there's a scandal in the Church. And, of course, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

Dan,

It seems pretty clear, based on both the Novak article and the Midgley article, that FARMS positioned itself as the "belligerents" of BKP's talk. Do you disagree with that? Y/N?

[_harmony]

I don't think it's difficult to understand why CK would call Jim Clayton "Clayton."

Why do you think he chose to call Boyd Packer "Boyd" in the same sentence?

Yes, that's what I thought you were referring to.

So please explain why, when I wrote: "I think you're reading something into his post that isn't there.", you replied: "Perhaps it's you reading something into my post that isn't there."

What did I see in your post that wasn't there? Especially since here you are, clarifying the very thing I remarked about in my initial post.

Why did you do that, instead of simply clarifying your initial statement?

And why would you neglect to comment on the subject of the thread, but rather chose to comment on his use of names? The thread is not about Chris's use of any particular name (first or last or both). Are you trying to draw people away from the subject of the thread?

And if you want to know why he used one last name and one first name, perhap you should ask him directly, instead of speculating.

Do you have no comment on Novak? On the Clayton letter? On the essay? Are you not going to defend FROB?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It seems pretty clear, based on both the Novak article and the Midgley article, that FARMS positioned itself as the "belligerents" of BKP's talk. Do you disagree with that? Y/N?

Yes, I disagree with that.

I don't recall anybody so much as mentioning Elder Packer's talk in the course of writing or editing or publishing that or any other articles that we've published on Mormon historiography.

Incidentally, what do you think about Prof. Peter Novick's comments on Professor Midgley's views of the state of Mormon historical writing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, that's what I thought you were referring to.

So please explain why, when I wrote: "I think you're reading something into his post that isn't there.", you replied: "Perhaps it's you reading something into my post that isn't there."

Because it literally wasn't there.

On the other hand, the difference between Boyd and Clayton is there.

And why would you neglect to comment on the subject of the thread, but rather chose to comment on his use of names? The thread is not about Chris's use of any particular name (first or last or both). Are you trying to draw people away from the subject of the thread?

I was unaware of the MDB rule prohibiting comments on aspects of prior posts that are not part of the overall thread topic.

And if you want to know why he used one last name and one first name, perhap you should ask him directly, instead of speculating.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but my post responding to CK's post addressed him directly. (Not you.)

Do you have no comment on Novak?

Sure. I like him. I consider him a friend, although our contacts have mostly been electronic, and I don't know him overly well.

On the Clayton letter?

Not really. I've been aware of his position for many, many years, as is, I suspect, just about anybody seriously concerned with Mormon historiography. This is hardly new, or news. The letter is nearly three decades old, and all of these issues have been extensively discussed not only in the FARMS Review but in Sunstone, Dialogue, BYU Studies, and various other journals and books and talks.

On the essay?

I like it.

Have you read it?

Here are a couple of good essays by Gary Novak, both available on line:

Review of Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, by George D. Smith

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=1&id=125

With Louis Midgley, "Remembrance and the Past"

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=658

It would be best, I think, to read them in their entirety, rather than merely in Scartch-extracts, Scartch-spun.

Are you not going to defend FROB?

If and when I see something on which the FARMS Review needs to be defended, I won't hesitate to defend it. I've never hesitated in the past.

[_Mister Scratch]

It seems pretty clear, based on both the Novak article and the Midgley article, that FARMS positioned itself as the "belligerents" of BKP's talk. Do you disagree with that? Y/N?

Yes, I disagree with that.

I don't recall anybody so much as mentioning Elder Packer's talk in the course of writing or editing or publishing that or any other articles that we've published on Mormon historiography.

That talk, and Elder Oaks's subsequent "Reading History" CES talk are both critical to understanding the Mopologetic approach. Obviously, you are not going to disagree with Elder Packer, which therefore means that you, Midgley, Novak, and other hard-line apologists are "belligerents." To disagree would be a signal of apostasy.

Incidentally, what do you think about Prof. Peter Novick's comments on Professor Midgley's views of the state of Mormon historical writing?

I'm not sure which comments you're referring to. Could you provide a link? Or are you simply referring to the "satisfy both needs" gist of That Noble Dream?