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

[_harmony]

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.)

Well, which ones?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have this odd fetish about the need to know people upon whom one wishes to pronounce summary judgment and about the need to read books upon which one intends to pontificate at length. And, as if that quirkiness weren't enough, I also tend to think that, if one is going to critique someone else's thinking, one ought to have that person's own words before one, on which to base one's critique.

But I'll take a stab at it.

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent.

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that to explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason.”

Professor Midgley isn't deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, of which he's been a fairly prominent member for many decades.

There. I think that covers every substantial proposition advanced in the paragraph.

[_Mister Scratch]

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!

Well, you are probably right about that. Why not embarrass me by testing my knowledge of the content of Novick's comments, then?

[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.

Gee, are they buried somewhere? That's a common tactic in FARMS writing, after all. Hmmm....

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!

Almost as funny as an editor who is unfamiliar with Chicago Manual of Style protocol for the citation of messageboard postings.

Hilarious!

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.

Then prove it by posting the link. C'mon, Dan: I'm sure all the silent TBMs in the silent peanut gallery are waiting for you to provide them with the punchline.

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.

Go ahead, Professor P. Post the link and show everyone how "clueless" I am. Why don't you demonstrate what a hilarious, comedic genius you are. I'm sure everyone will think your little "joke" was brilliant.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have this odd fetish about the need to know people upon whom one wishes to pronounce summary judgment

No, you don't. You have never met me before and yet you've dealt endless judgments upon me.

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent.

Then he disagrees with the Brethren.

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that to explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason.”

Then which of Joseph Smith's revelations does "The Midge" consider to be "products of culture"? The Book of Mormon? Zelph? The Book of Abraham? Oh, please, Prof. P.! Do tell! To not tell would be.... Dare I say it? Suppression of history.

Professor Midgley isn't deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, of which he's been a fairly prominent member for many decades.

His verbal assaults and harassment of critics says otherwise.

There. I think that covers every substantial proposition advanced in the paragraph.[/quote]

[_beastie]

Well, sure, fellow apologists are going to deny this fairly represents Midgley's opinions, since, after all, they do regulate some of Joseph Smith' teachings to culture or opinion. And it may not accurately represent Midgley's opinions. But the idea came from somewhere. Or did he just create it out of thin air?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why not embarrass me by testing my knowledge of the content of Novick's comments, then?

Ah! Maybe a member of your creepy network of anonymous "informants" has come to your aid?

No, I won't test you. But feel entirely free to tell us about them.

Gee, are they buried somewhere? That's a common tactic in FARMS writing, after all. Hmmm....

Yes, they're buried in a printed text that's also available on line. Fiendish!

Almost as funny as an editor who is unfamiliar with Chicago Manual of Style protocol for the citation of messageboard postings.

Who would that be? Not me. When we provide references for cited message board postings, the references are by the book.

You seem to be getting just a tad desperate.

Then prove it by posting the link.

It's just too much fun to be able to illustrate, so clearly, the fact that Master Scartch, self-appointed scourge of Mopologetics, has at best a tenuous a grasp of the relevant literature.

Post the link and show everyone how "clueless" I am.

But I already have.

You have never met me before and yet you've dealt endless judgments upon me.

Only on your on-line persona, which is, indisputably, grimly and obsessively hostile.

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent.

Then he disagrees with the Brethren.

"A prophet is a prophet only when speaking as such." -- Joseph Smith

Professor Midgley doesn't believe that to explain any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason.”

Then which of Joseph Smith's revelations does "The Midge" consider to be "products of culture"? The Book of Mormon? Zelph? The Book of Abraham? Oh, please, Prof. P.! Do tell! To not tell would be.... Dare I say it? Suppression of history.

Professor Midgley should be permitted to speak for himself. But I do know that he doesn't regard Joseph Smith as infallible or as utterly disconnected from his early nineteenth-century American biblicistic culture. And I never said that Professor Midgley rejects any of Joseph's revelations. You're shifting the goal posts, as you so often do.

Professor Midgley isn't deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community, of which he's been a fairly prominent member for many decades.

His verbal assaults and harassment of critics says otherwise.

You appear to imagine that "critics" constitute "the entire LDS intellectual community."

Professor Midgley doesn't.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, sure, fellow apologists are going to deny this fairly represents Midgley's opinions, since, after all, they do regulate some of Joseph Smith' teachings to culture or opinion. And it may not accurately represent Midgley's opinions. But the idea came from somewhere. Or did he just create it out of thin air?

LOL. You could -- ROFTL -- read what Professor Midgley has published! [!!!!!!!!!]

(Just kidding. I'm not completely insane.)

[_Ray A]

For a critique of the New Mormon History, including Clayton's approach, see David E. Bohn, No Higher Ground.

Criticisms weren't only offered by FARMS.

Ray, this link didn't work for me. Is it working for others?

No worries gramps, I'll try to find another link to that essay, but here is another critique by Bohn (who along with Ron Esplin was considered a "defender"), which contains the substance of his criticisms of the New Mormon History:

Our Own Agenda: A Critique of the Methodology of the New Mormon History.

This one should work okay.

[_beastie]

LOL. You could -- ROFTL -- read what Professor Midgley has published! [!!!!!!!!!]

(Just kidding. I'm not completely insane.)

You're a sloppy reader. I already stated that it may not accurately represent Midgley's views (which may have altered over the years, as well). But, even if it doesn't reflect Midgley's views, it is an idea that apparently had been repeated by various LDS historians who claim to have experienced this phenomenon. That is what likely was not invented out of thin air.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee, are they buried somewhere? That's a common tactic in FARMS writing, after all. Hmmm....

Yes, they're buried in a printed text that's also available on line. Fiendish!

Huh, wow. I have to confess that I just don't know what you're getting at, Professor P. Novick is not a FARMS author, so you technically didn't publish these comments of his. Perhaps you cited them in the text of one of your articles? Is that it?

Oh! Wait a sec.... Did you publish them in a footnote??? Oh, man. I just have to hang my head in shame. What a fool I am! And I've read this article before, and reviewed it! Oh, I'm so humiliated that DCP was able to trick me by referencing a footnote!! Oh, how will I ever live this down. I knew that failure to thoroughly read and memorize every last footnote in ever issue of FARMS Review would spell the end of my credibility. Oh, woe is me!

Almost as funny as an editor who is unfamiliar with Chicago Manual of Style protocol for the citation of messageboard postings.

Who would that be? Not me. When we provide references for cited message board postings, the references are by the book.

You seem to be getting just a tad desperate.

Lol. As do you, Professor P., as do you.

Post the link and show everyone how "clueless" I am.

But I already have.

Gee, you did? On this thread? Please refresh my memory.

You have never met me before and yet you've dealt endless judgments upon me.

Only on your on-line persona, which is, indisputably, grimly and obsessively hostile.

Oh, well then, I'm sure the same rationale applies to my criticism of you.

Then he disagrees with the Brethren.

"A prophet is a prophet only when speaking as such." -- Joseph Smith

Come on now. I'm referring to the Brethren of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Then which of Joseph Smith's revelations does "The Midge" consider to be "products of culture"? The Book of Mormon? Zelph? The Book of Abraham? Oh, please, Prof. P.! Do tell! To not tell would be.... Dare I say it? Suppression of history.

Professor Midgley should be permitted to speak for himself. But I do know that he doesn't regard Joseph Smith as infallible or as utterly disconnected from his early nineteenth-century American biblicistic culture. And I never said that Professor Midgley rejects any of Joseph's revelations. You're shifting the goal posts, as you so often do.

I'll wait patiently for you to enlighten me as to just which of Joseph Smith's revelations Prof. Midgley views as being flawed. Same goes for you, Professor P. I'm sure you'll want to say, since you want to avoid the appearance of suppressing history. (Speaking of which: Have you asked Bill Hamblin about finding that 2nd Watson Letter?)

His verbal assaults and harassment of critics says otherwise.

You appear to imagine that "critics" constitute "the entire LDS intellectual community."

Professor Midgley doesn't.

You appear to imagine that Mopologists constitute "the entire LDS intellectual community."

I don't.