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

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

That's what I thought.

And you want me to direct you to the specific article in which he doesn't express those views?

[_beastie]

That's what I thought.

And you want me to direct you to the specific article in which he doesn't express those views?

I want you to direct me to the article in which he demonstrates, by the assertions he does make, that he does not support those views.

Is this really rocket science, or do you really not have an article to point me to, and you were just bluffing? You are the one who asserted Midgley's publications would clarify the matter.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

Nope!

Oh, okay. Well, anyways, I liked this comment the best:

He [i.e., Louis Midgley] has repeatedly insisted (in a phrase that has been variously interpreted but has entered the language of historical argumentation among Mormon historians) that there is no middle ground—meaning there is no middle ground between Joseph Smith as prophet and Joseph Smith as not prophet. You have got to choose which side are you on. Your money or your life.

Yes; I see what you mean. It sure is hard to view Midgley as one of the "belligerents," especially given this quote from Novick. This adds further evidence to Clayton's characterization of Midgley as a "black/white" thinker.

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!

Oh, okay. <Whew!> I was beginning to think that you were just playing games.

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.

Yes, what about it?

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.

Again, that's not accurate. I *am* willing to ascribe opinions to you which you've "expressed," since, of course, people can express things implicitly.

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

Hey, I learned from the best.

[_beastie]

While it is still possible that DCP will direct my attention to one of Midgley’s articles that demonstrate how, for example, he can accept that some of Joseph Smith’ teachings were “products of culture”, as I stated earlier, I have perused some of his articles housed at FARMs. While this article is devoted to what appears to be a strong interest (insisting on the historicity of the Book of Mormon as essential to the faith), it does contain some statements that seem to lend some credence to Clayton’s summary.

To Remember and Keep: On the Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book

The Rise of a Secularized History and Its Impact on Jewish Faith
But with the emergence of a modern historiography grounded in secular assumptions, often radically challenging the assumptions that stand behind the account of the past found in the Bible, we see, according to Yerushalmi, "a decisive break with the past." What takes its place is an amorphous and shifting set of secular premises that form the basis for the modern historical outlook and sooner or later set the Jew working on the Jewish past in conflict with what had been taken for granted in all previous conceptions thereof.

Yerushalmi argues that the "belief that divine providence is not only an ultimate but an active causal factor in Jewish history, and the related belief in the uniqueness of Jewish history itself," soon disappeared among those writing the new Jewish history:13 hence what Harold Bloom calls "a troubling and possibly irreconcilable split between Jewish memory and Jewish historiography."14 Yerushalmi is not convinced that the new Jewish history, based as it is on the secular assumptions of modern historiography, can do much to preserve and even less to restore the integrity of either Jewish memory or faith. From his perspective, in the quest for a "usable past," it is unwise to rely on a highly secularized professional historiography for the needed light. This explains the melancholy, bittersweet tone of his book, since he is a gifted professional historian.

According to Harold Bloom, modern secular "historiography, of all the modern disciplines practiced by Jewish scholars, is necessarily the most Gentile."15 The ultimate consequence is that "scripture has been replaced by history as the validating arbiter of Jewish ideologies, and the replacement, [Yerushalmi] believes, has yielded chaos."16
The Analogy with Revisionist Readings of the Book of Mormon
I first remember encountering the language of remembrance, and the suggestive reflections on the place of memory in forming and grounding Jewish identity, when in 1983 I noticed a review of Yerushalmi's book in Commentary.17 My initial interest in Yerushalmi's book was in the light it could throw on the role of the Bible in grounding Jewish history and Jewish memory. But I also saw a possible analogy between his reflections on the secularization of Jewish history and the subsequent decline of Jewish faith and what seemed to me to be taking shape among a few cultural Mormons.

As is rather well-known, some cultural Mormons have brushed aside the Book of Mormon. In one bizarre instance a prominent savant boasted of "not having read the entire Book of Mormon."18 He flatly rejected the Book of Mormon because, among other reasons, an angel was involved in its recovery.19 But in 1980, when I started a careful examination of a few Mormon historians and their secular assumptions, I found those with revisionist proclivities generally not quite this blatant—rather more shy and retiring than bold and adventuresome. In the early eighties I discovered only a few cultural Mormons who were cautiously advancing naturalistic explanations of the Book of Mormon and the story of its recovery.20 However, since the mid-eighties it has become fashionable to advance revisionist readings of the Book of Mormon. Elsewhere I have identified a number of former Latter-day Saints, RLDS "liberals," and various cultural Mormons who seem anxious to turn the Book of Mormon into nineteenth-century frontier fiction, inspired or otherwise, and Joseph Smith into a bizarre impostor, an imaginative religious "genius," or a combination of the two.21
Put bluntly, when I discovered Yerushalmi's book in 1983, what he described as having taken place since the early 1800s among assimilated, cultural Jews was suggestive of problems I then suspected would become fashionable, full-scale efforts to advance naturalistic accounts of the Book of Mormon and of the Mormon past generally. Why would we not expect the more corrosive ideologies flowing from Enlightenment rationalism—of modernity—eventually to have an impact on at least those on the fringes of the Mormon intellectual community? Since I first became interested in what was taking place among a few so-called Mormon intellectuals, many have sought to alter radically the way the Saints understand their founding stories and especially how they ought to read the Book of Mormon.

Without texts we have no past other than our own or shared communal memories. But Marty also argues that communities are not grounded in what we find in modern, secular historiography. Why? Because we do not really live by what is produced by either antiquarians or professional historians, for "religious communities are not made up of antique-collectors. For instance, the Christian church is not a memorial society," because "the church is not a 'keeper of the city of the dead.' While tradition keeps it healthy, when it loves tradition it is not a community of traditionalists." Instead, "it lives by stories. These can engender doctrines."24 Religious communities are thus grounded on a network of stories which constitutes the link with the past that forms their identity.25

But the stories that ground both individuals and communities, according to Marty, are not what is often meant by "history" in secular, academic circles. Communities of faith and memory do not depend on historiography as currently understood in the academic world. In addition, the fashions and fads of professional historiography often compete with the understandings of the past on which communities of faith depend.

Marty notes that Latter-day Saints have little interest in what is known in Christian and Jewish circles as "theology."28 Thus the Latter-day Saints, according to Marty, "especially live as chosen and covenanted people in part of a developing history," and therefore "much is at stake when the story is threatened, as it potentially could have been when forged documents concerning Mormon origins agitated the community and led to tragedy a few years ago."29 He has in mind Mark Hofmann's bizarre forgeries of what initially appeared to be texts that challenged the traditional account of the restoration. Marty claims that the faith and hence identity of Latter-day Saints is in important ways even more history-grounded than for Christians generally.
Why do attacks by cultural Mormons and others on the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the story of its recovery generate concern among the Saints? Put another way: why is it crucial for the Saints to give close attention to the Book of Mormon, as well as defend it from its critics? The answer is that for the Saints to begin to see the Book of Mormon as frontier fiction, as the product of a trance by a magic or occult-saturated, dissociative (manic-depressive) "genius," or whatever the latest fashionable naturalistic explanation might be, fundamentally transforms the crucial founding story of the restored gospel. For this reason the Saints hold that the Book of Mormon must be read as an ancient rather than a modern book. And this is also why much is at stake when these matters are debated.
Marty correctly senses that the faith of Latter-day Saints has always "been characterized by its thoroughly historical mode and mold." He sees the faith of the Saints as "historically classical" in its tradition.30 "When Latter-day Saints argue," according to Marty, "they argue about morals based on history, or about historical events and their meaning—about how the contemporary community acquires its identity and its sense of 'what to do and how to do it' from the assessment of the character, quality, content, and impetus of that story."31

It is therefore crucial for the faith of the Saints that the story of the generative or founding events remains essentially in place in the hearts and minds of the Saints. This does not, of course, preclude but actually demands competent, better-documented, more accurate, finely nuanced, and richly detailed accounts of the restoration, as well as continued thoughtful attention to the rich treasures found in the Book of Mormon when read as an authentic, ancient text.

The Saints thus have their own distinctive ties to the past. A story fills their memory and forms the identity that melds them into a community of faith and memory. That which disputes, dilutes, or transforms the distinctive Mormon past will also alter and erode the community that rests on those accounts. And that which refines, or tells more fully and accurately the story of the restoration, will preserve and build the kingdom. Hence the Book of Mormon and the related story of Joseph Smith's encounters with the divine must remain in place, or the faith of the Saints will languish or be radically transformed. Why? Those who either are or who become Saints do so because they find meaning in the Book of Mormon and the related account of its recovery. And their own story and the story of the restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ are thus linked. This is why we can speak of a Latter-day Saint community of faith and memory. Those who cease being or who never become Latter-day Saints do so because the basic story no longer has power to regulate and give meaning to their lives or because it never came to define their identity.

Marty has described what he considers a crisis of faith taking place among Latter-day Saints; he sees this dilemma as somewhat analogous to similar crises experienced by other Christian communities when they were confronted with certain corrosive intellectual elements of modernity as manifest in a radical relativism about all truth claims, including statements about the past—especially those in which the divine is said to be encountered—as well as Enlightenment skepticism about the miraculous, attacks on natural theology, historical-critical studies of the Bible, and so forth.

To the degree that Marty is correct, he is able to identify a crisis within a dissident element on the fringes of the Mormon intellectual community, which he claims has undergone a crisis even "more profound than that which Roman Catholicism recognized around the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65)."32 Although I believe that Marty has somewhat overestimated the extent of the crisis he describes, I am interested in what he believes is the source of the crisis.

Challenges to the Memory (and Faith) of the Saints

Marty refers to the "acids of modernity," which are the works of those he labels "God-killers,"33 whose ideologies have corroded the faith of many Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The resulting crises of faith in each of these traditions have come in waves and degrees, and with different effects in each case. For the Saints, the crisis is not one that centers on abstruse philosophical issues or on questions of natural science, including scientific cosmology, or even on systematic or dogmatic theology, but essentially on historical issues—on how the Saints understand the past, and especially on how the Book of Mormon is read and the story of the restoration is to be told and understood. The primary source of this crisis is the emergence of a "historical consciousness" that creates problems for a faith grounded in historical events because history no longer seems to contain any certainties, or because it is assumed that history must be written in such a way that the divine is removed, except as a product of illusion or delusion.

[_Ray A]

I don't know if this adds any perspective, but here are Lou Midgley's comments on the FAIR blog:

And the idea that I cannot possibly imagine the mind-set of those who entertain doubts or who have rejected their faith is also rubbish. From the very moment I started university, and right on through my academic career, I sought out the most radically competing ideologies to see what I could learn from them and also exactly how my faith could stand up to them. My own research and teaching was grounded in the notion that whatever one believes about anything really worth having an informed opinion on ought to be tested in the fire of radical doubt. I have always had a host of doubts swirling around inside of me. Why? I fear being the dupe and I resent being manipulated. In this struggle, if one’s opinions happen to survive, they will obviously be modified and refined.

[Guest]

Ray,

That's a fascinating quote. It's funny this should come up because yesterday I stumbled on this statement from Novak about his favorite books:

Plato puts a critique of the existence of gods into the mouths of young men who are guided by passion (thumos) and makes temperate old men defend the gods. What is at stake? Only your soul: only the decisions you make as to the best way to live, only your choice of justice versus injustice, obeying the laws versus not obeying the laws. Plato's Laws has the power to shake your assumptions, convictions, and understanding right to the very core. If that doesn't make a good book, I don't know what does!

http://www.mhcc.edu/pages/1850.asp

Also, recently, listening to the Calvery Chapel radio station, Chuck Smith went off on a tirade about how as Christians and good students, we are to radically doubt everything. And lo and behold, the principles of Chuck Smith impressively stand up when virtually everything else falls.

Let's just say I have my own doubts that Novak, Midgley, or Chuck Smith are all that big on scrutiny towards their own assumptions, putting their most deeply held ideas to the test, and so on. Does it make all that much sense to say, "Well, this year I'm really going to put my beliefs in Mormonism through the refiner's fire, I'm going put it all on the line, think through the hard issues as if my very soul is really at stake. If the church is all a fraud, I'm going to figure it out this year, no one will make a fool of me, the rutheless skeptic."

I have always had a host of doubts swirling around inside of me. Why? I fear being the dupe and I resent being manipulated.

This is just odd for a couple reasons. First, what doubts? Will Midgley or anyone from FARMS let us in on the big doubts surrounding the truthfulness of the Church that are always swirling around their head, 24/7?

Second, he really fears being the "dupe"? I have to smile about that, given whoppers Joseph Smith came up with. But anyway, I think it's odd. I'm an atheist, I enjoy being skeptical and all that, but I don't live my life in fear that someone might be manipulating me. That just sounds paranoid. I'm sure I've been used, I'm sure I've had the wool pulled over my eyes at times, but honestly, most of the time in life you just need to be realistic and have a plan for yourself.

Suffice it to say, I can't take Novak, Midgley, or Chuck Smith too seriously when they speak about what radical skeptics they are, and find joy in taking the intellectual vial of acid to their deepest convictions in order to see if they hold. up. It's not only impossible to do that, but unbelievable that they or anyone else really does, and enjoys it.

I see these kinds of remarks as overcompensation.

[_harmony]

" Why? I fear being the dupe and I resent being manipulated. In this struggle, if one’s opinions happen to survive, they will obviously be modified and refined."

Ummm... isn't Dr Midgley employed at BYU?

[_Ray A]

Gad,

I have my own theory - the spiritual witness Trump's all.

Mike Quinn is in the same boat. Absorb carefully what Quinn says about his retention of belief in Mormonism. It's his own spiritual experiences, not what prophets say.

I think you have to do mental gymnastics to retain an orthodox (literal) belief in Mormonism. But I'm not cynical of those who retain belief, even if they have to "revise" orthodox belief. Maybe it's just that they don't like being forthright about their real doubts, because of that spiritual conviction, which really, I think, rightly or wrongly, underlies apologetics. People don't apologise for what to most others seems absurd, unless they have other convictions which is what really generates their strong beliefs.

[_The Nehor]

That's what I thought.

And you want me to direct you to the specific article in which he doesn't express those views?

I want you to direct me to the article in which he demonstrates, by the assertions he does make, that he does not support those views.

Is this really rocket science, or do you really not have an article to point me to, and you were just bluffing? You are the one who asserted Midgley's publications would clarify the matter.

I cannot recall that Beastie has ever publicly stated that she is against child pornography. Could someone please direct me to a previous post showing assertions that show that she is anti-child pornography? Without such evidence I will be left to assume that she runs a child pornography ring or at least sympathizes with their cause.

Any links would be appreciated. Thanks.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's what I thought.

And you want me to direct you to the specific article in which he doesn't express those views?

I want you to direct me to the article in which he demonstrates, by the assertions he does make, that he does not support those views.

Is this really rocket science, or do you really not have an article to point me to, and you were just bluffing? You are the one who asserted Midgley's publications would clarify the matter.

Beastie. Beastie.

I've been listening to the man for nearly forty years. I've known him very well, met and/or spoken with him at least once a week, for nearly a quarter of a century. I've stayed with him and his wife in New Zealand, twice, for a couple of weeks each time. I've traveled with them in Australia. I'm in daily e-mail contact with him. I've worked with him on the FARMS Review for at least the past ten years or so.

I don't need to cite his articles in order to know his views.

If you think I don't understand his views, it's up to you to show that I don't. I suggest reading his articles. If you can't find any ammunition there, you might try going to London. You'll find him and his wife among the theatres of the West End.

You're right. This isn't rocket science.