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

[_harmony]

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 [snip]

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.

So would it be fair to put Bushman as a New Mormon Historian and Midgley as an Old Mormon Historian? (age having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction).



I hate these ads.

[_harmony]

I don't have much problem, most places.

Neither do I. I'm actually known for my clarity, and am in some demand to make presentations in some places.

But there seems to be a block on some of the minds here. No doubt I haven't read the book yet.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So would it be fair to put Bushman as a New Mormon Historian and Midgley as an Old Mormon Historian? (age having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction).

Professor Midgley doesn't claim to be a historian at all -- by training, he's a political philosopher with a strong professional interest in twentieth-century continental theology -- although I would consider him something of an intellectual historian.

And I'm not sure, really, that Richard Bushman is fully a "New Mormon Historian." I hesitate to continue to recommend reading books, but a good measure of Richard's philosophy of history can be taken from his excellent anthology Believing History: Latter-day Saint Essays (New York City: Columbia University Press, 2006).

[_Ray A]

[
So would it be fair to put Bushman as a New Mormon Historian and Midgley as an Old Mormon Historian? (age having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction).

From Bushman's own words, he classified his book Rough Stone Rolling in that category. Midgley isn't a historian, he's a retired professor of political science. in my opinion, Bushman has gravitated towards this trend when he recognised the need for more openness in his biography of Smith. In the 1980s, I would not have placed him in that category, possibly some where in the middle.

I have, incidentally, a hardcopy of Midgley's "Acids of Modernity", and some letter exchanges he had with a late friend of mine, Max Nolan, who was a friend of Sterling Mc Murrin. Some file digging might be in order next week, but at the moment I'm getting ready for work.

[_harmony]

So would it be fair to put Bushman as a New Mormon Historian and Midgley as an Old Mormon Historian? (age having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction).

Professor Midgley doesn't claim to be a historian at all -- by training, he's a political philosopher with a strong professional interest in twentieth-century continental theology -- although I would consider him something of an intellectual historian.

If he's not a historian, at least by some obscure measure, then why is he mentioned in this discussion? Who cares what a retired political science professor thinks, if he has no seat at a table discussing historians?

So... intellectually, is he Old or New? Since one can't be both or neither (unless one, of course, is not a historian at all), which is it?

And I'm not sure, really, that Richard Bushman is fully a "New Mormon Historian." I hesitate to continue to recommend reading books, but a good measure of Richard's philosophy of history can be taken from his excellent anthology Believing History: Latter-day Saint Essays (New York City: Columbia University Press, 2006).

*sigh*

I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. I work a 50+ hour week. What free time I have, I use to clean my house and weed my flower beds, and play on the internet. The list of books you think I should read is both long and expensive. I doubt my library carries them (the last time I requested a book mentioned on this website, they looked at me like I had 2 heads). Some of us don't have the time, don't have the means, and quite frankly don't have the energy to expend doing what you get paid to do. Okay? I'm not being stupid, Daniel. I just don't have the advantages you have.

So please... kindly cease giving me reading assignments, and just give me Reader's Digest version. And if you can't/won't do that, I'll understand. Really.

[_Ray A]

Out of interest, Louis Midgley's letter to Dialogue, Summer 1989.

Which Middle Ground

[_harmony]

[
So would it be fair to put Bushman as a New Mormon Historian and Midgley as an Old Mormon Historian? (age having nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction).

From Bushman's own words, he classified his book Rough Stone Rolling in that category. Midgley isn't a historian, he's a retired professor of political science. in my opinion, Bushman has gravitated towards this trend when he recognised the need for more openness in his biography of Smith. In the 1980s, I would not have placed him in that category, possibly some where in the middle.

I have, incidentally, a hardcopy of Midgley's "Acids of Modernity", and some letter exchanges he had with a late friend of mine, Max Nolan, who was a friend of Sterling Mc Murrin. Some file digging might be in order next week, but at the moment I'm getting ready for work.

Why do we care what Midgley thinks, if he's not a historian?

[_Ray A]

Why do we care what Midgley thinks, if he's not a historian?

I read historians' opinions first, not Louis Midgley's, but there's no arguing he's very well-read, and he's been "around the ball park" quite a lot, and for a long time. His opinions are taken seriously by many, otherwise he'd never get mentioned.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If he's not a historian, at least by some obscure measure, then why is he mentioned in this discussion?

Because he's published a considerable amount on what might be termed the "metahistoriography" or the philosophy of history, and because his comments on the subject have been substantive and controversial.

If Scartch were actually familiar with "Mopologetic" literature -- and, of course, if he were fair-minded -- he would be able to direct you to some of the admiring comments that Peter Novick, the University of Chicago historian and student of American historical practice, has made about Professor Midgley's incisive remarks on Mormon historical writing. (Professor Novick's comments are available in print and on line.)

Who cares what a retired political science professor thinks, if he has no seat at a table discussing historians?

He has a seat at the table.

I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. I work a 50+ hour week. What free time I have, I use to clean my house and weed my flower beds, and play on the internet. The list of books you think I should read is both long and expensive. I doubt my library carries them (the last time I requested a book mentioned on this website, they looked at me like I had 2 heads). Some of us don't have the time, don't have the means, and quite frankly don't have the energy to expend doing what you get paid to do. Okay? I'm not being stupid, Daniel. I just don't have the advantages you have.

So please... kindly cease giving me reading assignments, and just give me Reader's Digest version. And if you can't/won't do that, I'll understand. Really.

I realize that you're at a substantial disadvantage, and I don't blame you for it. But that still leaves you at a disadvantage.

[_Jersey Girl]

delete