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

[_Gadianton]

Wow, "Modern-day Nehorism", what a scholarly assessment. I have to wonder, Beastie, if David Bokovoy isn't getting completely ripped off by studying at Brandeis rather than a school offering an entirely faith-promoting view of the Bible, complete with affirming the miracle of Joshua making the sun stand still and Moses turning water into blood. I remember a great post by him a couple years ago discussing the difficulties of going to Bible school. How, day in and day out, they are tasked with tearing apart the Bible as a "humanistic composition" I believe his words were, and how this approach could wear on the faith of many students. But funny enough, it doesn't seem as if he's dropped the program. Is it cognitive dissonance that keeps him studying there? I wonder? Or does he really feel like he's been given a quality education? Based on Midgley's words, one should believe David has chosen to spend God knows how much time studying under a bunch of dupes caught up in intellectual fads as opposed to studying scripture at a solid fundamentalist Christian school that emphasizes the literal resurrection of Jesus and figuring out what the mark of the beast is in its courses.

Midgley wouldn't even think twice about studying Greek or Egyptian mythology using the tools forged by modern methodological naturalists, in fact, he'd probably have a hard time seeing the value of studying these subjects any other way. If he were ever to find himself in a course taught by a teacher who really believed in Zeus, and that refused to teach critical methods of understanding Greek "mythology" but rather promoted the literal existence of Zeus on Olympus and emphasized internal studies of Greek texts which prove that Zeus is the God of heaven, he'd feel ripped off I'm sure. And if this same teacher were to be found operating on a secret list-serve that waged email war on anyone who dared touch Greek Mythology with modern historico-critical thinking and declared all scholarship from the modern period to present-day to be a series of fads, he might drop the institution altogether and find it highly unethical, not to mention downright fruity.

[_beastie]

Yes, Gad, I suspect you're correct (and I also agree with your earlier skepticism about how much folks like Midgley really have applied critical analysis to their own beliefs to test them). In fact, I'm quite certain that someone who lives "among the theatres" in London would, in fact, look askance at any teacher who approached the Greeks with the insistence on a literal interpretation of the existence of the gods.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.)

You've saved me the effort of having to point out that the depiction of Midgley is a impressive distortion. But I'll throw in a wink, anyway. ;)

[_beastie]

You've saved me the effort of having to point out that the depiction of Midgley is a impressive distortion. But I'll throw in a wink, anyway. ;)

I've provided several quotes that seem consistent with Clayton's summary of Midgley's views. DCP has asserted that one can ascertain Midgley's real views by reading his publications, but has denied my request to point us towards which publications best suit this purpose. Perhaps you can comply?

[_Mister Scratch]

You've saved me the effort of having to point out that the depiction of Midgley is a impressive distortion. But I'll throw in a wink, anyway. ;)

I've provided several quotes that seem consistent with Clayton's summary of Midgley's views. DCP has asserted that one can ascertain Midgley's real views by reading his publications, but has denied my request to point us towards which publications best suit this purpose. Perhaps you can comply?

I don't know if anyone noticed, but DCP has abandoned his game-playing with me. Probably because he rather stupidly referred to a damning quote, i.e., this one from Prof. Novick, whom apologists rely upon quite heavily:

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.

It seems to me that Novick's view of Midgley is the same as Clayton's.

[_Ray A]

I agree with a lot of what you say. But I do want to emphasize the point that not all who do retain belief view themselves as fierce skeptics. Doesn't something just not ring true to you if someone who believes in angels, exalted men ruling from Kolob, and the like say to you, "Oh no, I'm anything but gullible, all these so-called absud beliefs I espouse, be assured, I've put through the acid test time and time again and even against my own grave doubts and predictions, they have surprisingly come out triumphant."

I believe both you and Quinn have cast a lot of doubt on your beliefs, I think you've both gone through some tremendous trials of belief. It's evident in your writings. I also don't recall you and Quinn boasting about how skeptical you are, and how commited you are to putting your most cherished thoughts under severe scrutiny.

Gad, Quinn has a great article in Sunstone which goes into his personal beliefs and experiences in detail. A little later I'll search it out and provide you a link to it. There are similarities between us, but also some differences. I think what we share is an emphasis on the importance of those spiritual experiences. I've never read, anywhere, of Quinn being skeptical towards the Book of Mormon, much less mocking it in any way. I have openly and repeatedly questioned it as history (which Quinn hasn't), but not openly questioned it as inspired revelation. (Midgley would not be happy with me in that sense.) The Church and the Church leadership is a different matter. In that regard we could be twin brothers. Quinn isn't an apologist, and doesn't view his approach to history as faith-damaging (I don't, either, at least to core personal spiritual experiences). To the contrary, he believes that much of apologetics (historical and theological) is what damages faith in the long run.

I think there is some overcompensation here because of the nature of the discussion. Holding beliefs in some of these outlandish things that skeptics often make fun of, that skeptics, many of which who aren't very careful in their own thinking and are merely plucking the low-hanging fruit, I think tempts one in the direction of wishing to be more skeptical than the skeptics and feel the power of saying, "Oh yeah? We'll I'm smarter and more skeptical than you are, and I believe it's all true, so there!"

If I understand you correctly, I wouldn't say this is true in regard to Quinn, or myself. We're both excommunicated, and though mine is a personal choice, it's merely a case of volunteering my head for the chopping block rather than having a leader put it there. I'm not sure who is impressed by this nor that it generates greater faith, and even if it does, it's not intentional. But, admittedly, this is one stumbling block many critics don't often face, that in spite of Quinn's no holds barred approach to history, he isn't resigned to joining the crowds in declaring it all a fraud. Quite ironic, I suppose, that the one who understands the history the best, isn't fazed nor disillusioned by it. His Sunstone article is the most insightful one I've seen describing exactly where he's coming from. He was also given a personal revelation that never came to pass, and claimed that President Kimball made a prophecy about him, which no one has been able to verify. In that sense he's way farther into the woods than I am.

[_Gadianton]

Ray,

thanks for the additional comments. In case I wasn't clear, I don't see you or Quinn "overcompensating" in the way I suggested. This is what I see in Chuck Smith and others I mentioned.

[_The Nehor]

If he were ever to find himself in a course taught by a teacher who really believed in Zeus, and that refused to teach critical methods of understanding Greek "mythology" but rather promoted the literal existence of Zeus on Olympus and emphasized internal studies of Greek texts which prove that Zeus is the God of heaven, he'd feel ripped off I'm sure. And if this same teacher were to be found operating on a secret list-serve that waged email war on anyone who dared touch Greek Mythology with modern historico-critical thinking and declared all scholarship from the modern period to present-day to be a series of fads, he might drop the institution altogether and find it highly unethical, not to mention downright fruity.

I think if I found myself in such a class I would enjoy it immensely. It sounds like tremendous fun.

[_Chap]

Suggestion: because it is revealing of the cultural assumptions made by the writer about his target readership - i.e. that they will be impressed by the fact that Midgely is currently in a European capital city, an environment where there are theatres, plural.

I've been around DCP long enough to notice that he frequently peppers his comments with references that are meant to imply a sort of cultural/academic elitism. I usually just ignore them, as I would politely avert my eyes from some other self-preening trait in real life, like wearing lots of "bling". But it is interesting to point them out, now and then, and speculate about why he so often feels compelled to add such asides. It may have to do with the frequent tendency of believers to fawn over degreed apologists, and to use those degrees, in and of themselves, as some sort of buttress for the apologetic argument currently being discussed...even if the degrees have nothing to do with the topic, anyway. I may be wrong about that connection, but it seems possible. It does seem that apologists and their fans try their hardest to convince themselves that critics are largely uneducated and uncouth. It is an ironic trend, given the LDS church's historic antipathy to the "learning of men" in regards to questions of religion.

I rather think that Beastie has it right. It is possible that DCP included the note about Midgley's holiday plans because he thought that readers of this board would find it heart-warming to know that he was having a fun vacation. But somehow it seems less likely than the explanation above.

[_Mister Scratch]

Suggestion: because it is revealing of the cultural assumptions made by the writer about his target readership - i.e. that they will be impressed by the fact that Midgely is currently in a European capital city, an environment where there are theatres, plural.

I've been around DCP long enough to notice that he frequently peppers his comments with references that are meant to imply a sort of cultural/academic elitism. I usually just ignore them, as I would politely avert my eyes from some other self-preening trait in real life, like wearing lots of "bling". But it is interesting to point them out, now and then, and speculate about why he so often feels compelled to add such asides. It may have to do with the frequent tendency of believers to fawn over degreed apologists, and to use those degrees, in and of themselves, as some sort of buttress for the apologetic argument currently being discussed...even if the degrees have nothing to do with the topic, anyway. I may be wrong about that connection, but it seems possible. It does seem that apologists and their fans try their hardest to convince themselves that critics are largely uneducated and uncouth. It is an ironic trend, given the LDS church's historic antipathy to the "learning of men" in regards to questions of religion.

Humorously, I once teased DCP about having "Brethren-sanctioned" taste in art, music, film, literature, and so on. He got extremely huffy, which may point to another aspect of his "name dropping" (and, for that matter, his rather dumb use of quotes from Shakespeare, Eliot---does he view himself as a Prufrockian figure, I wonder?---and the like), which is that he is trying to overcompensate for the basic Mormon embarrassment in the fact of cutting-edge art and culture. Take film, for example. Practically the entire oeuvre of Martin Scorsese is basically off-limits for the typical TBM, as are classics such as The Godfather, and more recent fare like Pulp Fiction. The TBM has been forbidden from consuming things like this, and so the more finely attuned LDS---like DCP---will fall back upon the canonical classics, since they are "safe." I'm sure there are plenty of TBMs who, on some level, would like to learn to appreciate the significance of, say, early 1990s West Coast gangsta rap, or the novels of the Brat Pack. But, this stuff, as per the GAs, is "verboten," and so all they can do is bash it as being "coarse," "middlebrow," "stupid," or whatever else.