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

[_beastie]

I don't have much problem, most places.

But you are, I grant, pretty bad.

Oh, please. I've read your posts on Z, FAIR, MAD, and here. You regularly accuse many critics of misconstruing your words... while, of course, refusing to clarify what you actually meant. You are tragically misunderstood.

I wonder what the problem was, that several of these so-called New Mormon Historians got the impression that Midgley was asserting that "faithful" historians who were willing to use "naturalistic terms" to explain some of Joseph Smith' teachings were committing an "act of treason". Maybe it was something in the water.

Let me know if you ever get the article. I think further discussion without it is pointless. You state that you do not believe Clayton was fabricating the words he directly quoted and attributed to specific pages, and, well, there are only so many ways to spin "faithful", "naturalistic terms" and "act of treason".

[_Ray A]

What I find interesting is the contrast between Dr.Midgley's views of Shipps' Mormonism (a book I actually read, LOL), and Richard Bushman's.

Bushman's comments

"This may be the most brilliant book ever written on Mormonism. It is insightful, inspiring, and original and sure to become a landmark work on the subject."--Richard L. Bushman, author of Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism

And Midgley's Review

Why then do the Saints believe that the Book of Mormon is true? The answer provided by Shipps is both circular and superficial: the Saints, she claims, believe that the Book of Mormon is true because it was "defined as truth by the prophet whose rising up was prophesied therein, the book became true for those who believed, in much the same way that the entire body of Christian Scripture has become true for biblical literalists."102 Those for whom the Bible is no longer true will quickly grasp the point she is making. Thus her presumably detached, neutral approach to the Book of Mormon is intended to allow her to rise above even the stance taken by those she describes as "serious critics" who see it as "not only worthless but a fraud" because of what she sees as its numerous weaknesses; it is, she insists, nevertheless to be regarded "as the product of an extraordinary and profound act of the religious imagination."103 She is silent on what might constitute such an imagination.

Perhaps it is possible to see what Shipps thinks were the sources for the Book of Mormon—in her language, Joseph Smith's "religious imagination"—in her public endorsement of the Brooke book. This book is the most recent, ingenious, and inaccurate version of F. M. Brodie's earlier effort at explaining away what Shipps correctly understands as the very foundation of the faith of the Saints. Brooke's book, whatever else one might say about it, is clearly not neutral. When confronting prophetic truth claims, the theories employed to explain them are never neutral. The Book of Mormon, in the language already quoted from C. S. Lewis, "is either a fact, or a legend, or a lie."

Shipps has undertaken the difficult task of explaining Mormons to skeptical Gentiles, while not offending the Saints. That she has stumbled occasionally and not satisfied everyone should not overshadow her accomplishments, even though Mormonism is not a book of rigorous scholarship or deep learning, but a sympathetic, cautiously worded, highly generalized work which approaches the explanation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon rather temperately on a kind of sociological (or what might also be called a popularized religious studies) plane. As I have shown, the portions of the book that might be of interest to readers of this review are really cautious extensions or elaborations of themes, resting on naturalistic assumptions, initially set out much earlier in her career.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've read Prof. Shipps's book, too. (Something of an act of revolutionary non-conformity here, I suspect.) I consider her a friend.

I also consider both Richard Bushman and Louis Midgley friends, and I agree with both of them regarding Professor Shipp's book.

Oh, please. I've read your posts on Z, FAIR, MAD, and here. You regularly accuse many critics of misconstruing your words... while, of course, refusing to clarify what you actually meant. You are tragically misunderstood.

You're not alone in your cluelessness, I'm afraid.

Message boards are exceptionally dense cluelessness fields.

I wonder what the problem was, that several of these so-called New Mormon Historians got the impression that Midgley was asserting that "faithful" historians who were willing to use "naturalistic terms" to explain some of Joseph Smith' teachings were committing an "act of treason". Maybe it was something in the water.

Maybe.

But Professor Midgley is a friend of mine, and so are a fair number of the so-called "New Mormon Historians," and I don't know that any of them would agree with that summary of his position.

well, there are only so many ways to spin "faithful", "naturalistic terms" and "act of treason".

It's not a matter of spin, beastie. It's possible to disagree with you for other reasons. (And the terms you've chosen aren't the salient ones, anyway.)

[_cksalmon]

It may well be that DCP's characterisation of Novick's intellectual qualities is accurate. It may well be that the quoted passage radically misrepresents Novick's view of the group of LDS historians there referred to.

Frankly, I hope it does.

Give it a listen, Chap. It's actually a quite good lecture.

cks

[_beastie]

You're not alone in your cluelessness, I'm afraid.

Message boards are exceptionally dense cluelessness fields.

As I said. Poor Dan, the only person who surpasses Midgley in being misunderstood. I'm sure he would agree that the folks who misunderstand you two are dense, clueless, won't read books, and are easily impressed by mentions of degrees,foreign cities and opera.

Maybe.

But Professor Midgley is a friend of mine, and so are a fair number of the so-called "New Mormon Historians," and I don't know that any of them would agree with that summary of his position.

Well, it remains a mystery.

It's not a matter of spin, beastie. It's possible to disagree with you for other reasons. (And the terms you've chosen aren't the salient ones, anyway.)

"Faithful", "naturalistic terms" and "act of treason" are pretty clear cut. Now, how would we know if those terms are not the salient ones without his text? Out of all the people on this thread, I suspect you are the only one with access to the actual text. Again, let me know if you obtain access to it, and then there will be more to discuss.

Until then, let us all bow our heads in sympathy for poor, tragically misunderstood Dan and Louis. And misunderstood due to no foibles of their own, but due to the density, cluelessness, and general uncouthness of the unwashed masses. Sigh.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As I said. Poor Dan, the only person who surpasses Midgley in being misunderstood.

Don't be maudlin, beastie.

I don't have many problems with being misunderstood, except with a few internet critics.

Life is quite good.

I'm sure he would agree that the folks who misunderstand you two are dense, clueless, won't read books,

Dense, clueless people who refuse to read do, it's quite true, tend to misunderstand us.

Does that surprise you? Do you think that dense and functionally illiterate cluelessness constitutes good preparation for understanding the philosophy of history and such things?

and are easily impressed by mentions of degrees,foreign cities and opera.

It doesn't seem to me that you and your handful of pals here are very impressed. Simple mention of foreign cities, opera, and education seems, rather, to inflame you. It's very odd. (Perhaps I'll have to dust off my old copy of Richard Hofstadter's 1963 Pulitzer-Prize-winning Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.)

"Faithful", "naturalistic terms" and "act of treason" are pretty clear cut.

That's true. They're not where the problem lies.

Now, how would we know if those terms are not the salient ones without his text?

By using your mind.

Out of all the people on this thread, I suspect you are the only one with access to the actual text.

I don't know for sure that Special Collections has a copy, I don't know when I'll have time to get to Special Collections, and I don't know that I care all that much, anyway.

Professor Midgley probably has a copy, but Professor Midgley is in a location that, out of deference to the tender sensibilities here, I shall not name. Perhaps, when he returns in a week or two, you can remind me of your craving to learn more about his remarks.

Until then, let us all bow our heads in sympathy for poor, tragically misunderstood Dan and Louis. And misunderstood due to no foibles of their own, but due to the density, cluelessness, and general uncouthness of the unwashed masses. Sigh.

Not the masses. They seem to do alright.

Just you and some of your Unglaubensgenossen.

[_Ray A]

Professor Midgley probably has a copy, but Professor Midgley is in a location that, out of deference to the tender sensibilities here, I shall not name. Perhaps, when he returns in a week or two, you can remind me of your craving to learn more about his remarks.

That seems the most sensible soultion. If this debate had occurred when I posted on the FAIR blog with Louis, I would have directly asked him. I suppose an email might not be out of the question either. Hopefully he isn't "Wheat" :) ???

[_Daniel Peterson]

That seems the most sensible solution.

We could probably generate ten or fifteen pages in the meantime, though!

I suppose an email might not be out of the question either.

He tells me that, while he's off in a place that it would be shameful to mention, he won't be checking on his e-mail.

He has a cell phone with him, and I have his cell phone number, but I don't think this rises to a level that merits bothering him while he's in A LOCATION THAT SHAN'T BE NAMED.

Actually, I don't think this issue has much merit. Period.

Hopefully he isn't "Wheat" :) ???

Now there's a thought.

Yes. That's it. Scartch! Call your office! "Wheat" is Louis Midgley! (Maybe. At least, it's not completely impossible.)

[_cksalmon]

Professor Midgley probably has a copy, but Professor Midgley is in a location that, out of deference to the tender sensibilities here, I shall not name. Perhaps, when he returns in a week or two, you can remind me of your craving to learn more about his remarks.

That seems the most sensible soultion. If this debate had occurred when I posted on the FAIR blog with Louis, I would have directly asked him. I suppose an email might not be out of the question either. Hopefully he isn't "Wheat" :) ???

Let us know how that goes. Unfortunately, the relevant source in question, in any sort of even mildly controversial discussion, seems always to be unavailable, out of reach, or in the possession of someone else.

[_Ray A]

Let us know how that goes. Unfortunately, the relevant source in question, in any sort of even mildly controversial discussion, seems always to be unavailable, out of reach, or in the possession of someone else.

If Dan let's me know when he's back I'll email him. Get it from the horse's mouth, if he isn't chewing on...."wheat".