Agent S's document stash: Part II

[Guest]

Earlier today I started this thread about a cache of documents I hosted for Mr./Dr. Scratch from one of his informants. I planned to delete the material (part of a total leveling of my old blog) and provide interested parties the chance to have at it before it goes in the trash bin.

A few hours after the thread was up, I got an email from Agent S (I'll continue to refer to them as such until they out themselves, should they choose to). I was quite shocked considering we'd only emailed once so that s/he could send me the documents, and that was three years ago. I was even more surprised to learn that the vault of Agent S was not quite emptied the first time around and that a few more hard to find documents had stuck to the bottom of the box and might be of interest to the masses.

S/he said that some of these documents are available or have been published, but that some of our resident Mormon studies buffs might like to see some of these old documents in the original mimeographed form as well as provide the documents to the general public in case they haven't been released online. Basically s/he has a box of documents that is clogging up space in the hall closet and wants them to go to a good home. My first suggestion of sending them anonymously to CaliforniaKid (and having him pay for the postage at the receiving end [j/k] ) wasn't too well received by Agent S, so we're going to post all the material through my blog like we did the first time.

This time Agent S will be providing the commentary (Doctor Scratch is on sabbatical from Cassius and currently searching Belgian archives for new material, thus he is unavailable for such trivial matters) this time which I'll post. Hopefully the first document packages will be out this weekend. Agent S needs time to scan and summarize the material. But that's what is in store (hopefully).

Cheers.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Awesome. Look forward to it.

[_harmony]

Please tell me there are no copywrites in place...

[_Bond James Bond]

A teaser. Not all the documents are scanned yet, and we're having technical difficulties due to the size of some of the documents making it difficult to transfer via email, but I want to get a few of these documents out before the weekend. I've broken S's synopsis of documents into parts which will be used in later posts. The entire synopsis of this first group of documents will be posted at the end, to keep a little suspense going to other documents. I give you Agent S:

I hope everyone enjoys the material cached here. There should be a little bit for all of you, I trust.

Some of the material to be cached here started showing up through the Mormon Underground while Leonard Arrington was at the helm. I was a University of Utah student at the time, and studied with some of the scholars featured here. They gave me a lot of this stuff. I also have an uncle, a history professor, who directed me to other material, and shared what he had freely with me.

I was also led to a lot of material by an Institute teacher who at that time was teaching at the U. of U. Institute, U. Carlisle Hunsaker, who taught the LDS Doctrine and Philosophy course for many years. He was booted out after refusing to back down to threats that he would lose his job if he participated in Sunstone symposiums. All instigated by Elder Packer. That really was the final nail in the coffin. Well, that and my family totally freaking out and treating me like crap for having questions and doubts.

That was ages ago it seems. I hadn’t looked at this stuff for a long time until recently and it brings back lots of mixed feelings.

But, for me, it wasn’t church history that did me in. Neither was it Sunday church culture, though I never really enjoyed that, nor felt comfortable in it. I was swept away by my studies in science, specifically evolution. And Shakespeare. It only took two or three semesters and I was out, pretty much. The study into Mormon history just confirmed what I had already concluded.

I tell people that I lost faith in Christianity long before I lost faith in Mormonism. That may sound strange, but I grew up immersed in the Mormon culture, and it was tougher to shake off than the actual doctrines of Christianity. It meant everything to me. When I lost faith in Christianity, I tried for a long time to continue holding on to Mormonism, in some way, shape, or form. What was at stake? - only my family, my complete moral framework, my self-esteem - just to name a few things.

While I lost most of my family, and had to build for myself a new moral framework, as well as, rebuild my self-esteem, it has all worked out in the end. But it was scary at times, I must admit.

I wish you all well in your journeys through this vale of tears. No path is an easy one, but I have never regretted leaving the Mormon path to strike out on my own.

Well, enough of that crap. Here is what is in the first tranch:

McMurrin, Liberal Education and Authentic Individualism. I couldn’t find this anywhere on the Net when I checked recently. Of course, you can read it at Special Collections, University of Utah, but I figure most of you can’t get there to do that. So, please enjoy. It is vintage McMurrin.

McMurrin, Toward a Christian Ethic. This is a devotional he gave in 1959 for the Week-Day Religious Education series. I found it in an old dusty book in the Institute library. I also have not seen this online at all. So, if you are a McMurrin fan, it gives a glimpse in to his thinking early in his career, while he was still working for the Church Education System.

Midgley-McMurrin Correspondence - Some of you might get a kick out of this. You can go back to the early Dialogue issue to read the reviews of McMurrin’s Theological Foundations. Midgley also sent a letter to the Editors, which was published, and you can find that there. However, the editors edited out two paragraphs. Midgley obviously wasn’t happy about that and sent a letter to McMurrin, with a copy of the two missing paragraphs. He didn’t want McMurrin to miss them. (I’m sorry for the poor quality. It was not the digital age yet.) I think you can, if you struggle, make out most everything and fill in the blanks with McMurrin’s response. He never sent the response, however, as I understand it.

[snipped until later by B23]

These three documents can be found here (assuming no technical difficulties):

http://zackc.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/documents-part-3/

(I will update the master documents list will all these documents as well for convenience. New documents will be at the bottom.)

http://zackc.wordpress.com/documents/

[_Bond James Bond]

Midgley-McMurrin Correspondence - Some of you might get a kick out of this. You can go back to the early Dialogue issue to read the reviews of McMurrin’s Theological Foundations. Midgley also sent a letter to the Editors, which was published, and you can find that there. However, the editors edited out two paragraphs. Midgley obviously wasn’t happy about that and sent a letter to McMurrin, with a copy of the two missing paragraphs. He didn’t want McMurrin to miss them. (I’m sorry for the poor quality. It was not the digital age yet.) I think you can, if you struggle, make out most everything and fill in the blanks with McMurrin’s response. He never sent the response, however, as I understand it.

Since the Midgley portion of this document [the text anyway] is incredibly hard to read here is my quick attempt at a transcript.

Introductory Paragraph
For those who are concerned to relate Mormonism to features of the larger culture, both in order to understand better the Gospel and to appreciate more fully its relevance to the world, [the] publication of Sterling McMurrin's Theological Foundations [] special significance. But his recent comments will only [intensify?] [the?] suspicion [are?] [?] [the?] [?] already feel toward the [?] will surely [re?] the [?] of his book. It will not be even more difficult for those of you who are convinced that the book should recieve thoughtful, critical attention to recommend it to Mormons. His reply to the three reviews seem to indicate a certain unwillingness to entertain constructive criticism. The reviewrs wer not hostile to him personally and were actually quite lavish in praise of the book. Of course, they did make some pointed cricisms. The issues raised by the reviewers certaily merit further [consideration?]. A really careful response to these criticisms wuld have been gratifying. Instead, he seems to have used the occasion to [?] people, the church leaders, and those at Brigham Young University, such as Hugh Nibley who are geniunely interested in Mormon theology. The most suprising thing was the blue ribbon he awarded to him self for [an argument] he thinke he won with Truman Ladson.

Second [Paragraph?]

I genuinely hope [McMurrin] will reconsider his position on the Mormon doctrine of salvation. [T?] insists that his only purpose is comparison and description, [b?] involved in prescribing for Mormon Theology. [?] foot. "The primary task of theology," he says, "[?] reconcilation of the revelation to the the culture, to make what is taken on faith as the word of God meaningful in the light of accepted science and philosophy." [?] who really believes that God has spoken will not be interested in merely eraching some kind of an accompodation pertainly revelation and the culture. McMurrin seems to believe that the "accepted science and philosophy" should call the "tune?; theology make the adjustments. On this issue I think that Hugh Nibley's far clearer to authetic Mormonism than McMurrin. But given McMurrin's program, I find it difficult to see that he has consistently carried it out. After all, his own "liberal [local?] which emphasizes man's rationality, [creativity?], [?], perfectability in the form of a version of [society?] [?], is not [?] it is not at all consistent with the accepted science and philosophy of our day, for there is now a deep scepticism of such things. He may feel that it is not necessary to conform to the world on all matters, and I [c/would?] agree with him on that. In any case, it is his liberal humanism that is not now "meaningful in the light of accepted science and philsophy," not the "studied irrationalism" of the Anderson, [Madsens], and Nibleys.

I did my best guessing on some words but others were too faded. Anyone who might help complete the transcript is much appreciated, but I think I did enough for people to get the basic idea. I might also ask Agent S to look at the original and see if they can help fill in the blanks.

[Maybe Midgley will read response, only 45 years late.]

[Guest]

Very interesting and insightful correspondence between Midgley and McMurrin. Even back in 1966 we see a Midgley that is quick to anger, quick to judge and quick to attack over any perceived slight.

Most people tend to mellow with age and lose their rough edges, for some reason this has not been the case with Midgley. This might be a good subject for a psychological study (the study of anger in Mopologists).

[_Bond James Bond]

Very interesting and insightful correspondence between Midgley and McMurrin. Even back in 1966 we see a Midgley that is quick to anger, quick to judge and quick to attack over any perceived slight.

I didn't want to say it Everybody Wang Chung. :)

[_Blixa]

got it!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Very interesting and insightful correspondence between Midgley and McMurrin. Even back in 1966 we see a Midgley that is quick to anger, quick to judge and quick to attack over any perceived slight.

Most people tend to mellow with age and lose their rough edges, for some reason this has not been the case with Midgley. This might be a good subject for a psychological study (the study of anger in Mopologists).

Midgley seems to have been angry ever since he was trounced in a debate with "enemy" ministers during his mission. His anger probably became even more entrenched after he was the object of some kind of Bircher witch-hunt at BYU. The thing is: this would have made him angry both at Church critics, and at the authority of the Church itself, which may help explain why FARMS-style apologetics appears "revisionist" in terms of doctrine and history. Midgley, I know, has been enormously disrespectful to certain Church leaders, and I was told that he played a crucial role in helping to unseat one of BYU's presidents. I sort of wonder why he's still a Church member, and why a more conservative element among the General Authorities has never pushed to have him excommunicated.

[_Blixa]

Midgley seems to have been angry ever since he was trounced in a debate with "enemy" ministers during his mission. His anger probably became even more entrenched after he was the object of some kind of Bircher witch-hunt at BYU. The thing is: this would have made him angry both at Church critics, and at the authority of the Church itself, which may help explain why FARMS-style apologetics appears "revisionist" in terms of doctrine and history. Midgley, I know, has been enormously disrespectful to certain Church leaders, and I was told that he played a crucial role in helping to unseat one of BYU's presidents. I sort of wonder why he's still a Church member, and why a more conservative element among the General Authorities has never pushed to have him excommunicated.

I have no idea what accounts for his signature crabbiness (and I'm being nice by using that term). I've observed Midgley for decades across a range of situations and discussions, both online and off, and his rancor is one of the constants in the universe. It's also pretty universally acknowledged by both LDS and non-LDS. He's almost sui generis in that respect.