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

[_Daniel Peterson]

Enjoy doing the dishes and the laundry, dearie!

Dang, I've been demoted. Last week I was your cherie amour.

I'm just trying to give you a pat on your adorable little head. If you'd prefer "my cherie amour," I'd be happy to use it!





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[_Mister Scratch]

Where? Could you provide a link? If they are so easy to access, and available online, then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link. And, I'm certain that you'll do this in order to avoid embarrassing yourself. I mean, you wouldn't want to get caught trying to score a rather petty point, only to be revealed as being totally and completely wrong on this.... If the comments are online, you'll be able to provide a link.

So cough up the link, Professor Peterson.

LOL. You like to pose as the authority on "Mopologetics."

Where have I ever claimed to be an "authority" on Mopologetics? I have stated that I consider myself to be "critic" of Mopologetics. Feel free to supply some evidence backing up your claims, Professor P. And feel free to supply a link while your at it.

Why should I lift a finger to ease your embarrassment, when it's so revealing?

You won't, indeed you cannot "embarrass" me without a link, my dear Professor!

[

Now, this is a little dishonest. You are (apparently) trying to create the impression that *you* (i.e., FARMS) published the Novick remarks, but, of course, that isn't true. You and Midgley and others have leeched on to Novick, but Novick himself is not a FARMS author.

Well . . .

We did indeed publish his remarks.

Not under his own name, you didn't. And again: if these are so freely available, so easy to access, then you'll have no problem supplying a link.

Part of my overall thesis in my ongoing threads is that the LDS Church, and by extension Mopologists (i.e., the "belligerents") are attempting to suppress history. So, I suppose I should thank you for helping to demonstrate my thesis, since you are obviously trying very hard to avoid posting a link to the Novick material.

[_harmony]

Enjoy doing the dishes and the laundry, dearie!

Dishes done, floor mopped, kitchen cleaned. Laundry spinning. Time for a break (lunch: a tomato sandwich of whole grain white bread, light Miracle Whip, and a tomato still warm from the garden. One of God's greatest gifts).

But feminists, surely, have sensitized us to the power- and status-rhetoric of situations where, for example, in a corporate office, the men are known by their last names and the women by their first names.

Are you going to answer my questions on the page preceding this one, about Chris referring to an apostle by his first name, thereby rendering him less status, power, and superiority, since as you say women have been so rendered by decades?

In other words, are you saying that Chris [rhetorically, of course] feminized BKP?

[_moksha]

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.

Whatever.

Perhaps being a BYU Professor, Dr. Peterson is constrained in his answer, but this is balderdash. Only in approaching the Church as a cult of obedience would one have to always find the Brethren right. Being wrong at times is part and parcel of the human condition.

They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again when opining on matters that are not directly related to theology. Mopologetics has its place.

[_harmony]

Perhaps being a BYU Professor, Dr. Peterson is constrained in his answer, but this is balderdash. Only in approaching the Church as a cult of obedience would one have to always find the Brethren right.

Isn't obedience the first law of the church?

Being wrong at times is part and parcel of the human condition.

I'm pretty sure at least some of our Top 15 think they've evolved past being merely human.

They have been wrong before and they will be wrong again when opining on matters that are not directly related to theology. Mopologetics has its place.

You know this, and I know this, and Bro McKonkie knows this, but do you really think any of our current Top 15 know this?

[_beastie]

My favorite part so far:

Professor Midgley maintains, for example, that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent. To explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason,” he believes. It is not the traditional science vs. religion conflict that Professor Midgley fears, but the “New Mormon History” vs. contemporary religious orthodoxy that inflames him. He fears that many Mormon historians are undermining faith in their writings, and is deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, which he believes “has always been only partly at home in the Restored Gospel.” Others, including persons in high Church positions, have expressed similar concerns about the alleged dangers of historical inquiry.

[_Gadianton]

Wow Beastie, that's amazing. And what a perfect example of black/white fundamentalistic thinking.

[_Mister Scratch]

My favorite part so far:

Professor Midgley maintains, for example, that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent. To explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason,” he believes. It is not the traditional science vs. religion conflict that Professor Midgley fears, but the “New Mormon History” vs. contemporary religious orthodoxy that inflames him. He fears that many Mormon historians are undermining faith in their writings, and is deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, which he believes “has always been only partly at home in the Restored Gospel.” Others, including persons in high Church positions, have expressed similar concerns about the alleged dangers of historical inquiry.

Oh, yes, I agree. The whole essay is quite extraordinary, in my opinion. I'm just glad that it is now freely available to anyone who wants to read it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where have I ever claimed to be an "authority" on Mopologetics? I have stated that I consider myself to be "critic" of Mopologetics.

Okay. I freely grant that I was wrong. You don't know "apologetic" literature very well.

You won't, indeed you cannot "embarrass" me without a link, my dear Professor!

I doubt that I could embarrass you even with a link!

[And again: if these are so freely available, so easy to access, then you'll have no problem supplying a link.

I would have no problem whatever supplying a link. Materials from Novick about Midgley are up, on line. They've appeared in print. FARMS, or the Maxwell Institute, published them. They're not hidden or concealed.

The fact that the self-appointed critic of Mopologetics isn't familiar with them is a nice illustration of the self-appointed critic's unfamiliarity with the material that he's appointed himself to criticize.

Too funny!

Part of my overall thesis in my ongoing threads is that the LDS Church, and by extension Mopologists (i.e., the "belligerents") are attempting to suppress history.

But you'll look in vain for anything demonstrating that I favor the suppression of history. I simply don't.

So, I suppose I should thank you for helping to demonstrate my thesis, since you are obviously trying very hard to avoid posting a link to the Novick material.

I'm not "trying hard." I'm doing it. Easily.

The Novick material has been published both in print and on line. Your cluelessness on this is both amusing and revealing.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My favorite part so far:

Professor Midgley maintains, for example, that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent. To explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason,” he believes. It is not the traditional science vs. religion conflict that Professor Midgley fears, but the “New Mormon History” vs. contemporary religious orthodoxy that inflames him. He fears that many Mormon historians are undermining faith in their writings, and is deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, which he believes “has always been only partly at home in the Restored Gospel.” Others, including persons in high Church positions, have expressed similar concerns about the alleged dangers of historical inquiry.

Has anybody besides me noticed that this doesn't appear to be an actual quotation from Professor Midgley, but is couched in the third person about Professor Midgley?

Having known of Professor Midgley for almost forty years, and having known him well for nearly a quarter of a century, I'm quite certain that he would disagree with several elements of the paragraph quoted above. (He's in England, at the moment.)