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

[_Daniel Peterson]

Professor Midgley should be back within twenty pages or so.

[_beastie]

Professor Midgley should be back within twenty pages or so.

It doesn't work, Dan.

You've already told me that the text I needed was Clayton's text, which strongly suggests it was accurate. That's all I wanted to know.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sigh. Whatever.

[_cksalmon]

Sigh. Whatever.

In the interest of clarity, with which of the following propositions would you agree?

(1) beastie needs access to a Special Collections transcript prior to opining. She does not have access to the relevant text.
Per DCP:

I presume he's actually quoting something, and that he's actually quoting something by Professor Midgley.

But I don't know the original context, and the quoted phrase itself doesn't help much with that.
...
I don't believe that I own a copy, if that's what you're suggesting.

There might be a copy in BYU Special Collections, but I can't check tonight and I won't have time to check tomorrow. Professor Midgley almost certainly has a copy, but his current GPS coordinates place him in a location that it would be ghastly and inappropriate to name and that does not facilitate checking on this matter.

Or,

(2) beastie does not need access to a Special Collections transcript prior to opining. DCP: "[She has] the relevant original text, containing the salient terms that need to be questioned."

You've stated both. Which is it?

Or, have you determined that the Clayton quotation captures the "original context?"

cks

[_JustMe]

Beastie

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.

I think the LGT will have no problem in holding back the supposed tide of the "inspired fiction" thinking of some with the Book of Mormon. Since the Book of Mormon's internal, and now increasingly external evidences shows up strongly in Mesoamerica, I suspect its strength will increase and this will certainlybe noticed, understood, and appreciated.

[_beastie]

I think the LGT will have no problem in holding back the supposed tide of the "inspired fiction" thinking of some with the Book of Mormon. Since the Book of Mormon's internal, and now increasingly external evidences shows up strongly in Mesoamerica, I suspect its strength will increase and this will certainlybe noticed, understood, and appreciated.

Upon what readings of ancient Mesoamerica do you base your statement that there is "increasing external evidences" showing up in Mesoamerica?

[_Daniel Peterson]

cks, beastie is too muddled for me to be able to help her.

Have you kept up with the thread?

[_beastie]

cks, beastie is too muddled for me to be able to help her.

Amazing. Even my post time stamped 3:30 today didn't help you? I truly cannot think of a simpler way to explain it.

[_Ray A]

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 agree that the Church has accommodated change in various areas. The 1978 revelation is another. When I joined the Church women couldn't offer prayers in Sacrament (though this changed twice), something that has been challenged by less informed, perhaps younger Mormons who never saw this. Only 8 years ago I was called a "Korihor" for suggesting that the Book of Mormon isn't history. Over the past 8 years this notion has been debated, and thus tolerated a lot more on the Internet. It's not as rare to see historicity debates today as it was in 2000, and it's ever rarer to be called "Korihor" for raising the subject. I can see the dilemma regarding historicity, but I think your point is relevant. What will be the long-term cost of closely guarding, and insisting upon historicity? Midgley pointed to the example of the RLDS, and diminished numbers, but the RLDS never exactly flourished in numbers. I am more inclined to accept their view, but I won't be rushing to join any church in any case. The eleven non-Mormon scholars who took part in the Truman Madsen organised symposium "Reflections on Mormonism" c.1978, who addressed the Book of Mormon, all approached the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha, including James H. Charlesworth, considered to be the foremost authority on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (like Coe, he admires the Book of Mormon). The writing has been on the wall for a long time, but the stakes in conceding are far too great, a la Midgley. Roberts was a few generations ahead of his time, and today his "devil's advocate" approach has been "answered", even though his reasons for questioning went far beyond material evidences, for example when he saw an "imaginative pious mind" at work. Today it's not "how shall we escape these difficulties?", but "difficulties answered". But not for all, me included. And I wonder for how many generations to come. This is one of the underlying aspects of some of the new Mormon historians, which Dr. Midgley has accurately pointed out. Charlesworth isn't a threat, because he's not and never has been a Mormon. Nor are any of the scholars who comment "from a distance". They (NMH) don't believe the Book of Mormon is history, and that underlies much of their writing. It's only former Mormons like Metcalfe and Vogel who pose a real threat (hence Dr. Midgley's attention to them), because unlike Michael Coe, they can't be accused of "not understanding the Book of Mormon". Nor is this the case for you, or me.

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.

I think there is already considerable internal doubt about Book of Mormon historicity among many, but this is only based on my personal observations over some 30-plus years. I think it's more a case of "shelving" and going along with the status quo, or just not actively questioning historicity. After all, even the leaders have always said "the message is more important than the geography". In other words, heed the message, and the geography will take care of itself. Why would any General Authority subject himself to the torture Roberts put himself through, and risk losing his status or testimony? FARMS is there to bolster those who do believe, which is why it finally got GA endorsement, and high praise from several GAs, and is now appropriately called the Maxwell Institute, who initially approached it very cautiously, until they could clearly see that FARMS was definitely "Church-friendly". It will answer all "wolf objections". But FARMS will never question the Book of Mormon in a way that could shake faith. The minute it did that it would lose endorsement, defacto or official. Even if questioning minds arise within, they will follow Nibley's formula to "keep it to yourself". 3 AM doubts will never surface in print at the Maxwell Institute. Outside FARMS, essays like Blake Ostler's The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source is an example of internal doubt or questioning. Anyone who reads Ostler's 1987 essay cannot fail to see clear problems and anachronisms. Blind Freddy can see them. But Ostler's conviction is also strongly based on "matters of the heart". Failing to find answers, or to generate a successful theory to explain why God would include anachronisms in a record of religious history, or an "inspired but not history" model, Ostler is undeterred. I understand, but don't know for certain, that he's even questioned his former questioning such as his 1987 Dialogue essay. This isn't based on a rational approach, it's based on giving more weight to personal testimony and belief. Personal epiphanies and Holy Ghost endorsement is more important than glaring anachronisms. "Somehow it will all work out in the end." So stay with the Church. Ironically, this isn't a great deal different than the non-historical approach, because in the end it's personal conviction that Trump's all, it just isn't couched with defensiveness.

The LGT is the only model I see workable, but for me it's a case of accepting the best of the worst.

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?

I think Lou Midgley is well aware of this. I know Truman Madsen was well aware of this in the 1978 symposium. And this is what they're trying to avoid, Mormonism going the same way as the liberal Protestant trend. There will be no Jesus Seminars within Mormonism, no Marcus Borg-like books on LDS best-seller lists, but plenty of Gerald Lund, and the Hans Kungs of Mormonism will have to apply to Signature, or Prometheus Books for publication. In other words, Martin Marty was right. And so is Dr. Midgley, because as things stand, there is "no middle ground" as far as faith is concerned. You accept Joseph Smith on his terms, or dump both baby and bathwater. And judging by the results on boards like RFM, the latter option seems to be growing in popularity. Given the options, the Great Schism will continue, and Jesus' prophecy will be fulfilled, that a man's enemies will be they of his own household.

[_JustMe]

beastie

Upon what readings of ancient Mesoamerica do you base your statement that there is "increasing external evidences" showing up in Mesoamerica?

The new DVD A Journey of Faith: The New World. Fresh out and stunning information, not to say the least the beauty of the place!