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

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're a sloppy reader.

No I'm not.

But here's a novel principle for you: If you want to know whether certain characterizations of Professor Midgley's writings are grounded in his actual statements or were invented whole cloth (or something in between), an obvious starting point for your investigation is . . . to read Professor Midgley's writings!

[_beastie]

Which one of Midgley's essays best demonstrate his rejection of this ideology attributed to him?

[_beastie]

My comments that Daniel read sloppily:

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]

Never mind, beastie. Have a nice evening.

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?

Makes ya kinda wonder, don't 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!

Nope. Not a footnote.

Lay not that flattering unction unto thy soul.

I'll wait patiently for you to enlighten me as to just which of Joseph Smith's revelations Prof. Midgley views as being flawed.

I don't think he regards any of Joseph's revelations as being flawed.

You're trying to shift the goal posts, Master Scartch.

Speaking of which: Have you asked Bill Hamblin about finding that 2nd Watson Letter?

Losing your focus? Flailing around a bit?

Don't worry. I have to leave the computer soon.

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

Where have I ever said anything even remotely like that, Scartch?

CFR!

[_beastie]

Once again, which one of Midgley's essays best demonstrate his rejection of this ideology attributed to him? I don't see any that jump out as possible candidates, but I'm sure you'll know which one to refer me to. I really have no interest in reading them all, nor will I spend the time doing so. So tell me which one best represents your assertion?

[_Mister Scratch]

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!

Nope. Not a footnote.

Lay not that flattering unction unto thy soul.

You referenced Prof. Novick's comments about Louis Midgley, did you not? That was what you asked me to comment upon, did you not? I mean, you are attempting to turn this into a contest over who is more familiar with "The Witchcraft Paradigm," right? Are you sure that you're not talking about a footnote, and that Novick's comments about Louis Midgley are discussed in the body of the text of "The Witchcraft Paradigm"? I sure hope you can back this up, Dr. Peterson. Otherwise, it will seem as if you fouled up your own attempt at petty attack.

D'oh!

I'll wait patiently for you to enlighten me as to just which of Joseph Smith's revelations Prof. Midgley views as being flawed.

I don't think he regards any of Joseph's revelations as being flawed.

You're trying to shift the goal posts, Master Scartch.

Then the above points are relevant. Sorry! Midgley is a "belligerent."

Speaking of which: Have you asked Bill Hamblin about finding that 2nd Watson Letter?

Losing your focus? Flailing around a bit?

No, I never lose focus. As you well know.

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

Where have I ever said anything even remotely like that, Scartch?

CFR!

Did I say that you "said" that? No, it seems to me that I did not. I think Beastie is correct about you: your reading skills, as of late, are quite sloppy.

[_beastie]

Well, I read two of Midgley's articles, chosen at random because none of the titles seemed to indicate that they would address this topic, and so far, I was right. They did not make any statement about this topic.

So, DCP, which of his articles best demonstrates your point?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You referenced Prof. Novick's comments about Louis Midgley, did you not? That was what you asked me to comment upon, did you not?

I did.

I mean, you are attempting to turn this into a contest over who is more familiar with "The Witchcraft Paradigm," right?

Nope!

Are you sure that you're not talking about a footnote, and that Novick's comments about Louis Midgley are discussed in the body of the text of "The Witchcraft Paradigm"?

Yup!

I never lose focus. As you well know.

I wasn't talking about your malignant obsession with defaming me. That, I know, never slumbers, never sleeps. I was talking about your focus on the subject at hand in the discussion here.

Did I say that you "said" that? No, it seems to me that I did not.

You're quite openly willing, in other words, to ascribe an opinion to me even though I've never expressed it.

I admire the frankness with which you grant yourself the privilege of writing blank checks to yourself, for use against your chosen targets.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, I read two of Midgley's articles, chosen at random because none of the titles seemed to indicate that they would address this topic, and so far, I was right. They did not make any statement about this topic.

So, DCP, which of his articles best demonstrates your point?

What was my point, beastie?

[_beastie]

Your point that this does not represent Midgley's views.

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.