Mister Scratch wrote: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.
Gutterball!
Novick had many more things to say about Midgley than that.
They're available in print and on line.
You're plainly not very familiar with either the relevant literature or this issue.
LOL. A watershed moment in the pitiable history of Scartchoplectics.
A purported summary of Professor Midgley's views was cited, claiming that he says x, y, and z.
I remarked that this summary was not accurate, and that, in fact, Professor Midgley does not believe x, y, and z.
I suggested that one way for, say, beastie to familiarize herself with Professor Midgley's views would be for her to read what Professor Midgley has written. (I should have realized, from amusing past experience, that suggesting that beastie read something before dissertating upon it it would be effectively to wave a red cape in front of her.) Professor Midgley's consistent failure to affirm x, y, and z, would be enough to persuade any reasonable person that he does not believe x, y, and z -- or, at least, that if he does believe x, y, and z, there is no publicly available evidence to suggest, let alone demonstrate, such belief.
Beastie, having skimmed quickly through four of Professor Midgley's articles, reports that she has found no passages declaring not-x, not-y, and not-z, and demands that I supply a reference for her in which he declares not-x, not-y, and not-z.
There may well be such passages, somewhere. Professor Midgley has published a very great deal.
But it seems rather silly to demand that Professor Midgley actually have declared not-x, not-y, and not-z, when my assertion was simply that he does not believe x, y, and z.
Since I know Professor Midgley extremely well and have conversed with him on these very topics many times and for many, many, many hours over the years, it seems pretty plain to me that the burden of proof for someone who wants to argue that I'm wrong about his views rests on that person, and not on me. And that burden could be met, potentially quite easily, simply by finding passages from Professor Midgley in which he affirms x, y, and z.
It's not necessary for me to find declarations of not-x, not-y, and not-z in Professor Midgley's writings. It's enough that Professor Midgley's writings do not -- and I guarantee that they do not -- contain affirmations of x, y, and z. And it's up to a wannabe challenger to prove me wrong on that point.
I've already provided several citations that are quite consistent with Clayton's summary. Your turn.
And, of course, I won't be holding my breath. You won't be providing evidence any time soon, or ever.
I know what Professor Midgley's views are.
I spoke with him most recently on the morning he left for England.
Maybe I'll look through your culled quotations in a while. I'm going out for the evening. I'll be spending the evening, as it happens, with two former presidents of the Mormon History Association -- two of those honest, faithful historians whom Scartch seeks to protray as the precise antithesis of us Mopologist hacks. (There would have been a third former MHA president with us tonight, but, alas, he passed away about a year ago.) We get together often. I spent most of Thursday afternoon and evening with one of them.
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.
Gutterball!
Novick had many more things to say about Midgley than that.
Who cares? Unless there is something among those "many things" that somehow annuls what Novick said in the above quote, then everything else is a moot point.
Do you disagree with Novick's characterization, by the way?
Mister Scratch wrote:Who cares? Unless there is something among those "many things" that somehow annuls what Novick said in the above quote, then everything else is a moot point.
LOL. My point was that you don't know the relevant literature very well -- which your clueless flailing about in this case has illustrated wonderfully.
Good times!
Mister Scratch wrote:Do you disagree with Novick's characterization, by the way?