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

[_Daniel Peterson]

He who laughs last thinks slowest.

[_ScottLloyd]

Dr. Bish or Mr. Pederson....If you were in the average American work place all this doll, dearie, sweetie, poor baby, honey pie, darling business would most likely put your butt in a legal wringer.

Not too becoming of a real Mr., gentlemen, Bishop, or Doctor, probably OK behind a shovel and I guess you do shovel a lot here, so please proceed.

Shades of Emily Litella.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella

"Never mind."

[_beastie]

Okay, I'm guessing -- am I right? -- that these are the carefully selected passages that are supposed to demonstrate that Professor Midgley believes that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent, that Professor Midgley believes that explaining any of Joseph’s revelations or teachings as “products of culture” is an act of treason, and that Professor Midgley is deeply suspicious of the entire LDS intellectual community.

These passages demonstrate statements that Midgley has made that are consistent with Clayton’s summary. I think the following statements, in particular, demonstrate that Midgley would likely be very reluctant to label Joseph Smith’ teachings as “products of culture”.

It seems odd to me for someone talking about the ground and content of faith in God to be entertaining possibilities that range from fraud to perhaps some weak notion of a "revelatory experience." So much for testimony!

For more than a decade I have been warning of the direction being taken by a few—and I stress once again a few—Mormon historians bent on explaining Joseph Smith's prophetic charisms and the Book of Mormon in essentially secular, naturalistic terms.

I have argued elsewhere that for Latter-day Saints it has been what Professor Martin E. Marty and I have labelled "the acids of modernity"—ideologies grounded in an uncritically accepted and hence dogmatic rationalism growing out of the enlightenment—that have led to the dogmatic rejection of the prophetic truth claims of the Restored Gospel.

Now it’s your turn. Given the amount of writing Midgley has done, it shouldn’t be too difficult with someone as familiar with his work as you are to find some statements that demonstrate Midgley is comfortable assigning at least some of Joseph Smith’ teachings to culture.

[_Daniel Peterson]

These passages demonstrate statements that Midgley has made that are consistent with Clayton’s summary.

A Midgley declaration that there are 180 degrees in triangles or that Bern is the capital of Switzerland would be "consistent with Clayton's summary."

There's nothing in anything you've cited to justify Clayton's summary.

The burden of proof is on you (and Clayton), not on me.

[_beastie]

A Midgley declaration that there are 180 degrees in triangles or that Bern is the capital of Switzerland would be "consistent with Clayton's summary."

Utter nonsense.

There's nothing in anything you've cited to justify Clayton's summary.

Since I seriously doubt that Midgley would put such strong language in a FARMS publication (as there are other apologists who do attribute some of Joseph Smith' teachings to culture), the best we can do is find statements that would be consistent with the summary.

Look at this one more closely:

For more than a decade I have been warning of the direction being taken by a few—and I stress once again a few—Mormon historians bent on explaining Joseph Smith's prophetic charisms and the Book of Mormon in essentially secular, naturalistic terms.

Ascribing a teaching of Joseph Smith' to his culture is the quintessential example of explaining a "prophetic charism" in essentially secular, naturalistic terms. Just what in the heck do you imagine those words mean? If he's been "warning for decades" about this trend of a few, then clearly he is very concerned about it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A Midgley declaration that there are 180 degrees in triangles or that Bern is the capital of Switzerland would be "consistent with Clayton's summary."

Utter nonsense.

Not at all. Entirely sound, logically speaking.

I'm sorry the point eludes you.

(Really, I should stop wasting my time on this.)

Since I seriously doubt that Midgley would put such strong language in a FARMS publication (as there are other apologists who do attribute some of Joseph Smith' teachings to culture), the best we can do is find statements that would be consistent with the summary.

Midgley is too devious to have said what you want him to say, so you're going to have him saying it anyway, but in a dissembling and covert way, essentially in code.

This is wonderful methodology.

The results seem assured!

Look at this one more closely:

For more than a decade I have been warning of the direction being taken by a few—and I stress once again a few—Mormon historians bent on explaining Joseph Smith's prophetic charisms and the Book of Mormon in essentially secular, naturalistic terms.

That seems to pretty well wipe out the Claytonism that Professor Midgley believes all Mormon intellectuals to be "the enemy." Doesn't it?

It does, of course, whether you'll ever admit it or not.

But can you really not see the difference between "explaining Joseph Smith's prophetic charisms and the Book of Mormon in essentially secular, naturalistic terms" and accepting the likelihood that some of his teachings almost certainly reflected his early-nineteenth-century American environment? Really? Really????

Ascribing a teaching of Joseph Smith' to his culture is the quintessential example of explaining a "prophetic charism" in essentially secular, naturalistic terms.

Only if one believes that every aspect of every teaching of Joseph Smith was a deliverance, purely, of his "prophetic charism." Which, I can assure you, is something that neither Professor Midgley nor I believe.

Just what in the heck do you imagine those words mean?

I don't believe that teaching and revelation, or teaching and prophetic charism, are synonyms.

Nor does Professor Midgley.

If he's been "warning for decades" about this trend of a few, then clearly he is very concerned about it.

And I agree with him.

I know that you hate nuances and precision, and think that time spent on getting them right is time wasted. But they're really, really important. (That's why it's so useful, for example, to have read a book before writing very much about it.)

[_beastie]

Before continuing, I want to know one thing. Clayton used quotations marks around the statement he attributed to Midgley. In the footnotes he stated that these statements were found in Midgley's unpublished essay "A Critique of Mormon Historians: The Question of Faith and History", pages 28, 38, and page 13 of Midgley's "rejoinder to his critics".

The statement containing quotation marks is as following:

Professor Midgley maintains, for example, that one must accept Joseph Smith as totally prophetic or totally fraudulent. To explain Joseph's revelations or teachings "as a product of culture is an act of treason," he believes. It is not the traditional science vs. religion 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 only been partly at home in the Restored Gospel."

You seem to be implying that Clayton outright fabricated this statement, even the portion contained in quotation marks. I feel certain that you must have access to the unpublished talk. I would appreciate you checking on the pages Clayton specifically mentioned and letting us know what Midgley's talk really says.

[_Pokatator]

The L-Skinny is Far, Far Greater....with Pederson's tag team of Scott Lloyd and Wheat.

[_Tom]

After clearing up widespread confusion over why D. Michael Quinn "does not growl when anti-Mormons cite his writings," Prof. Midgley growls about Clayton's "account":

"This account is rather garbled. I had argued that it is a mistake—even treason—for a faithful Saint to explain away the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic truth claims as mere products of a superstitious village magician, as the work of a mythmaker (even if he is called a 'genius'), or as a mere mystical intuition. I did not, however, argue that the one and only 'not-prophet' explanation was that Brother Joseph was a conscious fraud—clearly there are several other possible explanations that critics have advanced. Those who deny that Brother Joseph was a genuine prophet have, for example, striven to picture him as driven by primitive illusions or delusions, as deeply superstitious, or as mad. They have also mixed and matched these explanations into several convoluted combinations. Fraud is thus only one possible counterexplanation. I had, of course, also urged faithful Latter-day Saint historians to defend their faith as well as they can against these attacks. In addition, I had offered a spirited criticism of the deeply flawed historical objectivism upon which not-prophet explanations are made to rest."

Midgley explains why he is so irritated and annoyed by Quinn, Hill, and others in this 2001 essay.

[_harmony]

That's right, you little doll. That's what he said. Which isn't the same thing.

Ummm... that makes no sense, sugar. If he's a prophet, fine and dandy, but if he's not, then it's all tainted (and a fraud).

So... are you going to explain, Danny dearest?