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

[_beastie]

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 not being maudlin; I’m teasing you. Your most frequent response to critics – not just a few – on Z, FAIR, MAD, and here is to assert that the critics have grossly misunderstood you. Of course, since you so rarely clarify what it was that you meant in the first place, or how the critics so grossly misunderstood you, readers are left to their own imaginations.

But, in real life, since no one misunderstands you, then Midgley will have to take your crown, since not only is he so egregiously misunderstood on the internet, (see here for example but he is also severely misunderstood by extremely intelligent people such as Quinn, Clayton, Hettinger, to name just three.

Beastie:

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?

Leaving aside the fact that I find your judgment as to whom is clueless, illiterate, and dense to be highly suspect, your logic is flawed. There is a difference between asserting:

A. People who misunderstand DCP and Midgley are dense, clueless, and functionally illiterate.

And


B. Dense, clueless, and functionally illiterate people tend to misunderstand DCP and Midgley.

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.)

I doubt if anyone’s inflamed. I think people are amused by your name/pedigree dropping. Along with your assertion that critics constantly misunderstand you, it’s one of your more common traits. It’s amusing. Sooner or later someone was going to point it out and giggle.

This part is particularly head-scratching:

Beastie:

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

DCP;

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

Beastie:

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

DCP

By using your mind.

You can’t make this stuff up. You keep lecturing us that actually reading texts in question is the only way to resolve the question. Now you act as if reading the actual text is immaterial, and “using my mind” could resolve it. You have not denied that the words Clayton put in quotation marks were from Midgley’s article (Clayton did provide page numbers, making it highly unlikely he fabricated these phrases.) You agree that the phrases in questions are pretty clear. Yet you assure us that the clear phrases aren’t salient, and we don’t even need the text to ascertain as much – just our minds.

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.

I’m shocked that you’re not interested enough to locate a copy. Just shocked, I tell you.

Not the masses. They seem to do all right.

Just you and some of your Unglaubensgenossen.

Perhaps it is the lack of the Holy Ghost Intelligence Amplifier that renders us so “dense”.

[_Trevor]

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

Which Middle Ground

That was an impressive letter.

[_beastie]

If my poor little dense, clueless, and functionally illiterate mind can wrap around words created by an stunning intellect enhanced by the Holy Ghost Amplifier, here’s how I understand one of Midgley’s points, that I view as pertinent to this discussion.

Midgley believes that maintaining a faith’s stories is crucial to maintaining that faith. In many ways, the stories define the faith, and provide a worldview to its believers. One of the ways that these stories can be diluted or polluted is by historians attempting to provide naturalistic explanations for these same stories. He refers to other faiths that have experienced this phenomenon, and he believes it has been to their detriment. Mormonism’s stories are enmeshed within historical events. Thereby, historians who attempt to naturalize the explanations for these stories are running the risk of diluting or polluting the stories to the faith’s detriment.

I actually agree with Midgley on much of this. I do think that religions who maintain strict boundaries around their stories and only sanction the divine explanation for those stories tend to produce members who are more firm in their commitment to the faith and their willingness to sacrifice time, money, or adjust behavior according to that faith’s demands. I think this is likely due to the black/white authoritarian presentation of the faith’s stories that are conveyed to present a clear picture of what God wants and expects of believers. I do agree that religions that allow their stories to be “liberalized” by historians or others within their ranks who present naturalistic explanations often suffer the result of more liberal members, in that the members feel less inclined to view the religion as The Authority and tend to view their own thoughts and opinions as having equal value and even authority as the religion itself. Thereby, these liberal believers may be less committed in time, money, and behavior, when the demands of the faith conflict with their own goals and desires.

“Using my mind”, even without Midgley’s original text, I think it is clear that Midgley was saying something fairly condemnatory about faithful historians who offer naturalistic explanations for Mormonism’s stories, and, in fact, likely did accuse them of engaging in an act of treason against the faith.

Now, there is a range of reason that even literalists usually do not fall beyond. Not even the most fundamentalist Evangelical actually believes the sun stood still. I doubt even Midgley would rush to view Joseph Smith’ teaching that there were men on the moon as inspired. However, outside this extreme, it seems to me that Midgley’s comments, that I’ve read so far, certainly indicate the tendency towards condemning even a faithful historian who offers a naturalistic explanation for something Midgley views as one of those crucial stories. I suspect this was the origin of the conflict between Midgley and the so-called intellectuals. He’s already made it plain that he harshly condemns any believer who is willing to consider the Book of Mormon inspired 19th century fiction.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your most frequent response to critics

You're exaggerating quite grossly.

– not just a few – on Z, FAIR, MAD, and here is to assert that the critics have grossly misunderstood you. Of course, since you so rarely clarify what it was that you meant in the first place, or how the critics so grossly misunderstood you, readers are left to their own imaginations.

Although I certainly don't reach the heights of English prose attained by Gadianton's Scartchmeister, I write reasonably clearly. And I'm quite willing to explain when some nevertheless don't understand (or even, as sometimes happens with you and certain other critics, seem to struggle not to understand).

But I have my limits.

You can’t make this stuff up. You keep lecturing us that actually reading texts in question is the only way to resolve the question. Now you act as if reading the actual text is immaterial, and “using my mind” could resolve it.

You really don't get it.

And, alas, I really don't care.

I’m shocked that you’re not interested enough to locate a copy. Just shocked, I tell you.

I already know and understand Professor Midgley's views. I haven't discussed these issues with him repeatedly over the past quarter of a century without gaining a pretty accurate handle on them.

This may be a burning issue for you. It isn't for me.

Perhaps it is the lack of the Holy Ghost Intelligence Amplifier that renders us so “dense”.

Perhaps.

It's something of a mystery.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Which Middle Ground

That was an impressive letter.

I agree.

[_beastie]

You really don't get it.

And, alas, I really don't care.

To be blunt, it seems to me that you usually claim "you don't get it, but I don't care enough to explain it" when you've gotten caught in the illogical or contradictory nature of your given response.

But perhaps someone else speaks Peterson out there and can tell me just how in the world DCP telling me that I don't really need Midgley's original text, in which he used the words "faithful", "naturalistic terms" and "act of treason" to determine that these words aren't "the salient ones", is consistent with his other statements about the imperative of reading the text in question.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sigh.

It's not even hard.

[_beastie]

Sigh.

It's not even hard.

Oh, I'm sure it's not. But given how you prefer to spend your time simply asserting that it's not hard, and that those who misunderstand you are dense, illiterate, and clueless instead of taking the brief amount of time to explain something so easy, I'm hoping that someone else who speaks Peterson will step up to the bat.

I'm sure it's because of my own inadequacies that I can't imagine how I can determine if the words "faithful", "act of treason", and "naturalistic terms" are salient without having the original text to read.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure it's because of my own inadequacies that I can't imagine how I can determine if the words "faithful", "act of treason", and "naturalistic terms" are salient without having the original text to read.

You have the relevant original text, containing the salient terms that need to be questioned.

And it's not that you're stupid. I think you're too partisan to read clearly, too eager to score a negative point to read fairly -- and, thus, too much trouble to bother with.

When Professor Midgley returns in a week or two, remind me of your hunger for understanding. Perhaps he has the original text. Perhaps he'll care to comment. (I'll encourage him, frankly, not to come here himself, but, if he's so inclined, I'll be happy to relay a statement from him. There's no point in his becoming attached to the tar baby here.) In the meantime, why don't you relax?

[_beastie]

You have the relevant original text, containing the salient terms that need to be questioned.

Really? I have the relevant original text? Here’s all I have, and it's from Clayton:

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."

So I’m assuming this is what you are referring to as the “relevant original text”.

Yet, when I first posted this, you replied:

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?

And LoaP concurred:

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. ;)

These comments led me to believe that Clayton had “distorted” Midgley’s words. That’s why I refrained from using the entire Clayton summary afterward and focused on the words that were direct quotations.

But now you seem to be saying that this summary is essentially correct. If I had known that, the subsequent debate would have been unnecessary.

And it's not that you're stupid. I think you're too partisan to read clearly, too eager to score a negative point to read fairly -- and, thus, too much trouble to bother with.

Or perhaps the problem is that you’re too partisan to read clearly, too eager to score a negative point to read fairly. After all, you’re the one who first objected to the Clayton citation because it was only a ‘third person’ statement and not an ‘actual quotation’, only now to claim that this is the original text.

When Professor Midgley returns in a week or two, remind me of your hunger for understanding. Perhaps he has the original text. Perhaps he'll care to comment. (I'll encourage him, frankly, not to come here himself, but, if he's so inclined, I'll be happy to relay a statement from him. There's no point in his becoming attached to the tar baby here.) In the meantime, why don't you relax?

If the Clayton summary was, in fact, accurate enough to count as “the original text” for you, then it’s not necessary.