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

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's the text. And you don't get it.

Professor Midgley will be back within a couple of weeks. Perhaps he'll care to respond to a question or two from you, if you want to formulate a question or two.





LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

[_beastie]

If that is the text, and it is essentially accurate, then why did you pretend that it was a misrepresentation?

[_Ray A]

I haven't followed Louis' writings for a long time, and my only online encounter with him was on the FAIR blog. Love or loathe him, he's been a central figure in Mormon apologetics for decades (for better or worse), but with very limited online exposure as far as forum debating is concerned. Most of his work is in the print media, and I've probably read most of his articles in the FARMS Review, certainly up to the late 1990s (he's a figure I haven't always agreed with, but even his "enemies" respect his intelligence). He has drawn lots of criticism, and Clayton isn't the only one to perceive him in this way. I don't know that "act of treason" is a definitive phrase, and one Clayton may have exercised a little hyperbole in using (and one I very much doubt Louis himself would use, even if the implication is there), but in my opinion it's not far off his actual feelings. I can also understand why he feels that "new Mormon historians", or more accurately the new Mormon history, are a threat to faith. My recollection of his encounter with Professor Martin Marty about the "crisis in Mormon historiography" is that he basically objected to the idea that Mormonism, as Marty suggested, was basically in its infancy and that it would eventually go the same way as all other major mainstream religions have gone, and learn to live and survive with varying degrees of secularisation, and a "naturalistic" understanding of the past, to some degree (think Crossan, Borg, the Jesus Seminar, etc., here). Marty suggested that those who wouldn't "go with the flow", and look more realistically at the past, would go into "second naiveté". That is, in spite of the NMH, they would persist in a kind of "denial". Louis doesn't see it that way, because Mormonism is different - it's true - whereas other religions are not as true as Mormonism. Therefore, Mormonism not only can, but must resist the trends towards secularisation, which Marty felt were inevitable, and it's only a matter of time, and the new Mormon historians were paving the way.

The "equipment" for Mormon historians to resist these trends is Mormonism's miraculous and unique past, especially the First Vision and Book of Mormon. Therefore, to interpret the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms is where Louis unsheathes his sword, so to speak, against the NMH. He wouldn't, for example, accept Dan Vogel's "pious fraud" idea, nor any kind of accommodation, no matter how generous in absolving the Prophet from outright fraud. He's either a true prophet, or in C.S.Lewis' phrase, the "author of a lie".

[_beastie]

Ray,

That is my impression, as well, so far. I must admit that I am left scratching my head in bemusement over what DCP thinks I don't "get".

I have stated before that I do think Mormonism is at a sort of crossroads - will it liberalize like the RLDS, or hold firm to the more literalist iron rod? There is a cost to both paths. LGT is definitely trying to hold back the "inspired fiction" tide for the Book of Mormon, but as the internet increases access to information that, previously, only LDS history "geeks" knew about, I wonder if that will be adequate.

[_Ray A]

That is my impression, as well, so far. I must admit that I am left scratching my head in bemusement over what DCP thinks I don't "get".

I have stated before that I do think Mormonism is at a sort of crossroads - will it liberalize like the RLDS, or hold firm to the more literalist iron rod? There is a cost to both paths. LGT is definitely trying to hold back the "inspired fiction" tide for the Book of Mormon, but as the internet increases access to information that, previously, only LDS history "geeks" knew about, I wonder if that will be adequate.

for what it's worth, I think you do have a good grasp of the issues.

[_beastie]

Thanks, Ray. DCP's latest round of mocking seemed particularly odd, given how he tried to present the Clayton quote as misleading and inaccurate, and now has presented it as accurate enough to count as "the text" I need, after all.

[_Ray A]

Thanks, Ray. DCP's latest round of mocking seemed particularly odd, given how he tried to present the Clayton quote as misleading and inaccurate, and now has presented it as accurate enough to count as "the text" I need, after all.

I think it's accurate to say that Dan would agree with Louis' following comments:

The Revisionist Agenda
In 1988, Marvin S. Hill described Dan Vogel as "a disaffected Mormon" who has striven to trace

what he considers the actual historical background of the Book of Mormon. Convinced that Joseph Smith wrote the volume, he attributes some of its ideas to Joseph Smith's money digging experiences and much of the rest to his desire to answer questions about the Indians that had been hotly debated in America since the sixteenth century.52

If Hill is correct, we have an explanation for the bias found in the articles Vogel has assembled in Essays on Mormon Scripture. Vogel was incensed by Hill's remarks,53 claiming that the book that was cited as evidence of his anti-Mormon stance did "not deal with the truth claims of the Mormon religion and therefore [he] does not fit Hill's "far left' category."54 But on this issue, Hill is right about Vogel. Why is that so? The reason is that attacking the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot be understood as defending Joseph Smith's prophetic truth claims. But Vogel is correct in claiming that there are some who want to deny the claims upon which that faith rests and yet still appear to remain within the Church. And he finds it advantageous to appear to be setting forth opinions that fall well within the legitimate range of scholarly opinions on Mormon issues. What Vogel has not demonstrated is that his stance involves more than a murky sentimentalism or a confidence game aimed at accomplishing covertly what has not been done directly—namely, eradicating by radical transformation the faith resting on Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

In an effort to explain his stance, Vogel claims that "for various reasons an increasing number of faithful Mormons are suggesting that it may be possible to question the Book of Mormon's historicity and yet maintain a belief in its sacred and inspired nature."55 No doubt some on the fringes of the Mormon community deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon and yet allow portions of it to be somehow "inspiring." But can that be done coherently? Vogel merely labels as "faithful"—though he does not explain how that can be—those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Such a tactic seems to beg the crucial question by assuming what needs to be demonstrated. Vogel merely asserts that "to question the Book of Mormon's historicity is not necessarily an attack on the Mormon religion."56 Here we have the key to revisionist legerdemain in dealing with the Book of Mormon and hence with the historical foundations of Mormon faith.

Hill also drew attention to the close relationship between Vogel and the late Wesley P. Walters, whom Vogel finds it necessary to describe as "a well-known opponent of Mormon-ism." Vogel is incensed because, in describing the Reverend Walters, Hill has taken "advantage of the existing prejudice in many Mormon minds towards their evangelical opponents."57 This statement suggests that Vogel no longer has an aversion to the "evangelical opponents" of the Church. Of course the Saints have a predisposition to reject the premises of their "opponents."

There is evidence of what Hill sees as Vogel's anti-Mormon proclivities. Vogel's first literary venture was an essay entitled "Is the Book of Mormon a Translation? A Response to Edward H. Ashment," which was published in a magazine entitled Journal of Pastoral Practice. It was prefaced by the following statement by the Reverend Walters:

Dan Vogel, a former member and missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, over a year ago made the difficult decision to leave the Mormon Church. He is presently considering the claims of Christianity. Meanwhile he is putting into writing some of the internal conflicts of Mormonism that helped shape his decision to leave the LDS Church. The following article is one of the best discussions we have seen to date on the problems involved in Joseph Smith's claim to have "translated' the Book of Mormon. We are pleased to make this material available to readers of the Journal.58

Vogel recently claimed that his literary ventures do "not deal with the truth claims of the Mormon religion" because something he calls the "metaphysical aspects of religion" cannot be tested by historical means. With this assertion in place, Vogel insists that his Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon "does not deal with the truth claims of the Mormon religion," though he concedes that in his conclusion he explores "the possible implications of my research on the historicity of the Book of Mormon."59 Vogel thus insists that by attacking the historicity of the Book of Mormon he is not necessarily rejecting what he calls "the Mormon religion." Like a number of those whose essays he included in Essays on Mormon Scripture, Vogel attempts to separate "the question of the book's historicity from [the] truth claims of the Mormon religion."

But Vogel is attempting to test historically the claims upon which Mormon faith rests, for that faith clearly includes and is grounded upon a complex story that is open to historical inquiry.60 Without a real Lehi colony, how could there have been a real resurrected Nephite angel who later visited with Joseph Smith, or real plates, all of which are part of the controlling narrative of the Mormon faith? Hence, whether the Book of Mormon is authentic ancient history and also whether the story of visits of heavenly messengers is accurate are questions within the province of historical inquiry. What this means is that to compromise in a radical way one essential aspect of the founding narrative calls into question all of the other elements. Conversely, to find reasons to believe that, for example, the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient history provides justification for the account of its coming forth. In any event, Mormon faith is not speculative, that is, it does not rest on Vogel's abstruse "metaphysical aspects," whatever that language may mean.

A disenchanted Vogel once found a patron in the late Reverend Walters. Vogel may now have discerned that association with notorious anti-Mormons, whose diatribes can be heard as part of the "Electronic Church,"61 is not likely to have an impact on the Mormon community. Be that as it may, he has found a new patron in George D. Smith, owner of Signature Books, who seems to have gone through a somewhat similar shift from his previous, more blatant forms of anti-Mormon polemics62 to a smoother, less abrasive and less direct approach attempting to mold and transform the Mormon faith. Like those Vogel calls "evangelical opponents" of the Church, whose crusades consist of open attacks on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic claims, part of Smith's effort involves showing that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history, that is, not simply true.

But, sensing that he is not likely to be taken seriously if his revisionist agenda were widely known, Vogel now poses as one interested in making available what the cover of Essays on Mormon Scripture calls "timely and thought-provoking discussions of Mormon canon." The premise behind such accounts is that Joseph Smith, either knowingly or unknowingly, produced fiction, inspired or otherwise, rather than an authentic ancient history and the word of God. When the Book of Mormon is read in this way, that is, as "theology" cast in fictional-archaeomorphic form, the sources from which Joseph Smith presumably borrowed as he crafted the fictional Book of Mormon are said to be themes found in the literature of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, whenever these sources are interpreted to have religious significance, Vogel and his associates find them to be largely sectarian Protestant in one form or another.63

In putting together Essays on Mormon Scripture, Vogel seems to have intentionally selected papers that challenge the traditional understanding of revelation found within the Mormon canon. These writers tend to seek to replace the traditional understanding of revelation (and of the prophetic claims upon which the Church rests) with what Vogel quaintly describes as a more "refined" understanding of the "human aspects of prophets, revelations, or scriptures." He claims (without giving any proof) that to make such a shift "does not detract from religion, as some traditionalists fear. On the contrary, what cultural and environmental studies challenge are simplistic assumptions about the nature of revelation" (p. viii). What this amounts to is the claim that Mormon scripture is not in any genuine sense the word of God, but merely language generated by cultural and environmental forces.

The ideology being advanced is articulated in the essay Vogel produced with Metcalfe. They end their article by asking about the implications of their opining

for the nature of inspiration, revelation, and scripture? It should be clear that the revelatory process is more complex than simplistic verbal models allow. Some Mormon scholars have therefore suggested models of revelation which account for all the aspects encountered in scripture. (p. 211)

Vogel and Metcalfe have in mind a theory of revelation currently being advanced by Anthony A. Hutchinson. Of course, they strive to put the best possible light on Hutchinson's speculation about prophets and revelation.64

Hutchinson's theory about what constitutes divine revelation allows him to claim that Joseph Smith, either knowingly or unknowingly, generated out of his own environment or cultural setting the story of heavenly messen-gers, the Book of Mormon, the book of Moses (including the Enoch materials), and the book of Abraham. He claims that doing that sort of thing can be seen as constituting "divine revelation." Hutchinson's premise is that what was produced by the presumably dissociative Joseph Smith must now be thought of as "inspired" and is really all there ever has been in the way of prophecy and revelation.

The essays reprinted in Essays on Mormon Scripture are neither among the best work currently available on the Mormon canon, as the paper by Curtis clearly illustrates, nor on the other topics discussed by the authors whose essays are included. For example, if Anthony A. Hutchinson's speculation warrants reprinting, why not include one of his more substantial efforts?65

Hutchinson advances what might be seen as a version of Nehorism, for he does not, like Korihor, flatly deny that prophets could possibly know the future—that would involve a dogmatic atheism, which he rejects. Instead, he argues that the notion that prophets sometimes speak of genuine future events is

an inadequate image of prophetic foreknowledge since not a single example of such a power can be found. A remarkable consensus on this point exists among biblical scholars, both those who deny the possibility of miraculous foreknowledge and those who confess the possibility of miraculously bestowed objective knowledge of the future. (p. 30)

For Hutchinson, God could reveal the future, but has simply never done so.66 He maintains that such a view "does not impeach the inspiration of the Book of Mormon nor compromise its scriptural status" (p. 39), though he neglects to show how either of these positions follows from what he mentions. Instead, he defends his stance with the further claim that "the Book of Mormon, regardless of its reliability as historical evidence, teaches that God does reveal himself" (p. 40), though again he neglects to give an explanation of how a work of nineteenth-century fiction, filled with theological overtones woven into a narrative by a dissociative scryer, could reveal anything about divine things, even inadvertently. In order to get to something like the proper opinion on the scriptures, the Saints should now, according to Hutchinson, begin "reformulating our understanding of our faith" (p. 41). The implication is that we will then have a new, different and better faith, with Hutchinson pointing the way. But, recast in this way, the faith would no longer carry authoritative claims or make genuinely binding demands or promises.

Vogel and Metcalfe claim that there is, in addition to that provided by Hutchinson, "another term to describe Joseph Smith's methodology," as they understand such things, which they label "prophetic eclecticism," and by which they mean "an inspired use of environment. "Prophetic eclecticism' allows for the dynamic, inspired, or creative exchange between a prophet and his cultural environment. It allows the prophet to reshape concepts from the wider cultural setting into a new whole and helps to explain the presence of both similar and unique elements encountered in prophetic utterance" (p. 211). They ask:

Where does this leave inspiration and revelation? Where they have always been: in the realm of subjective judgment. We are free to explore the historical and human aspects of scripture, but determining whether a concept is "inspired' or the "word of God' must always remain purely individualistic. When we realize that there is no empirical evidence either for or against scriptural inspiration, we begin to avail ourselves of a more sensitive, responsible scholarship as well as a more honest faith.67 (pp. 211-12)

What should one make of the argument "that there is no empirical evidence either for or against scriptural inspiration?" Such a claim makes sense if and only if one has already decided that revelation cannot possibly teach about reality. But the Book of Mormon clearly claims to do just that. And hence anything that can be said either for or against that claim either supports or detracts from that claim. One only needs a novel definition of prophets and revelation when one has already decided that the Book of Mormon is not simply true, that there was no Lehi colony and hence no plates and no real angel instructing Joseph Smith. But to advance such a theory is not in any fundamental way different from the stance that has always been taken by despisers of the restored gospel. It leaves the restoration exactly where the enemies of the Church have always wanted it—repudiated. (emphasis added)

More Revisionist Legerdermain and the Book of Mormon

Really, there's not much to argue about. Their positions are crystal clear, and have been for a very long time. "Sparring" on forums like this is probably more for "entertainment purposes" and the thrill of debate (and Dan has already said that his serious writing doesn't occur here). There's no compromising the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or even acquiescing the thought that it could be inspired but not history, because that would be a "repudiation of Mormonism" (a view I believe held by most Mormons). In other words, there's never, ever going to be any kind of "real dialogue" (as in ecumenical) with those who hold alternative views in regard to the Book of Mormon. And that's what FARMS is, and does; it's mission is to protect the integrity of the Restoration. Marty has referred to this as "two integrities" (though he personally believes that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon), something I suppose like Gould's "NOMA". I don't think even that is acceptable to people like Dr. Midgley. Understanding where FARMS is coming from is also essential in understanding the limits of "productive debate", and the impossiblity of compromise, either way.

I suppose the best we can all do is try to get along with one another, which is sometimes like ex-spouses trying to agree on a settlement.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP's latest round of mocking seemed particularly odd, given how he tried to present the Clayton quote as misleading and inaccurate, and now has presented it as accurate enough to count as "the text" I need, after all.

Sigh. Which text you need depends upon what you need.

[_beastie]

Sigh. Which text you need depends upon what you need.

If you really have no idea what I've been trying to find out about the Clayton quote (you know, the one you insinuated was an inaccurate reflection of Midgley's thoughts by emphasizing it was a "third person" account) at this point, then your habitual condescension is even funnier than normal.

But I will spell it out in painstaking detail:

I quoted this 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."

You, and LoaP, acted as if this was not an accurate reflection of Midgley's views by emphasizing it is a "third person" account. Since then, I have been trying to determine if this citation is an accurate reflection of Midgley's thoughts or not. I proposed that the best way to find out would to be look at Midgley's original talk, which Clayton referenced in his footnote, and compare it to Clayton's summary. You replied that I already had the text I need to make this evaluation. I can only assume that this means that Clayton's summary is actually an accurate reflection of Midgley's original (unpublished) paper on the topic.

[_beastie]

Thanks for the article, Ray.

Really, there's not much to argue about. Their positions are crystal clear, and have been for a very long time. "Sparring" on forums like this is probably more for "entertainment purposes" and the thrill of debate (and Dan has already said that his serious writing doesn't occur here). There's no compromising the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or even acquiescing the thought that it could be inspired but not history, because that would be a "repudiation of Mormonism" (a view I believe held by most Mormons). In other words, there's never, ever going to be any kind of "real dialogue" (as in ecumenical) with those who hold alternative views in regard to the Book of Mormon. And that's what FARMS is, and does; it's mission is to protect the integrity of the Restoration. Marty has referred to this as "two integrities" (though he personally believes that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon), something I suppose like Gould's "NOMA". I don't think even that is acceptable to people like Dr. Midgley. Understanding where FARMS is coming from is also essential in understanding the limits of "productive debate", and the impossiblity of compromise, either way.

I suppose the best we can all do is try to get along with one another, which is sometimes like ex-spouses trying to agree on a settlement.

It’s a very interesting issue. There is no denying that being willing to consider more naturalistic explanations for prophetic teachings or writings (like the Book of Mormon) would change the faith, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. The early Saints couldn't envision Mormonism without polygamy, either, but that change did happen, and the church survived, albeit in a different form. So the question is whether or not the change is worth the inevitable price tag that comes with it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I do agree with Midgley that religions that allow themselves to be liberalized do pay a cost in terms of member commitment. But religions that refuse to allow themselves to be liberalized in the face of growing accessibility to information that undermines some important truth claims also pay a cost in loss of membership.

I remember back when I first lost faith in the LDS church as the “one true church”. During a period afterward I still (and always have) viewed the LDS church as a Christian church, even if it wasn’t what I once believed it to be, so I considered staying in the church as a “fringie” believer. I was pondering this around the same time the Sep’t Six were ex’d, and I will never forget my Sunday School teacher bringing this mass excommunication up for some reason, and explaining how important it was for the church to get rid of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. I knew then that fringie Mormons could only survive by hiding their alternate views, and that alternate views would never be tolerated otherwise (despite the Big Mormon Tent myth at times propagated by MADdites). I – the way I was – wasn’t welcome in the LDS church. I left church that day and never returned, save for the occasional family function. So certainly I recognize that this is the current state of the LDS church, but that does not mean it will always be the state of the LDS church. I think that shifting from the hemispheric Joseph Smith understanding of the Book of Mormon to LGT is a pretty dramatic shift, as well. Not quite as dramatic as accepting those who view the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, but still a notable shift. The LDS church can, and does, change, even if traditionalists don’t like it. Of course that doesn’t mean it will change – I really have no good guess to make on this particular issue.

by the way, I wonder if the Midgleys in this argument have fully considered the fact that some portions of the Bible are actually regarded by scholars as being pseudographia. Anyone know?