More this, less that - an open letter to NAMIRS

[_sethpayne]

Dear Maxwell Institute,

Please publish more thoughtful and insightful reviews like this:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=156

And try to reduce the number of reviews such as:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=414
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=280

Sincerely,

Seth

[_Kishkumen]

Amen, sethpayne. You're speaking my language.

I can see why Bushman, as a believer, objects to the word "inventing," but I really don't see it as problematic. In fact, I think there is a perfectly valid LDS theological argument to be made in favor of the word "inventing." Joseph Smith's revelations discuss the process of receiving an infusion of intelligence, and he also refers to studying things out in your mind as part of the revelatory process. Invention is not exclusive of revelation, as some of the world's best scientists' descriptions of their experiences of the eureka moment should remind us. Don't LDS people love to point to those eureka moments as evidence of God's hand in scientific discovery?

Inventing Mormonism is not a concept that is necessarily exclusive of restoring the gospel.

[_brade]

Dear Maxwell Institute,

Please publish more thoughtful and insightful reviews like this:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=156

And try to reduce the number of reviews such as:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=414
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=280

Sincerely,

Seth

+1

[_sethpayne]

Amen, sethpayne. You're speaking my language.

I can see why Bushman, as a believer, objects to the word "inventing," but I really don't see it as problematic. In fact, I think there is a perfectly valid LDS theological argument to be made in favor of the word "inventing." Joseph Smith's revelations discuss the process of receiving an infusion of intelligence, and he also refers to studying things out in your mind as part of the revelatory process. Invention is not exclusive of revelation, as some of the world's best scientists' descriptions of their experiences of the eureka moment should remind us. Don't LDS people love to point to those eureka moments as evidence of God's hand in scientific discovery?

Inventing Mormonism is not a concept that is necessarily exclusive of restoring the gospel.

Hi Kishkumen,

I like your spin on the word "inventing" and can see how it would apply to the LDS concept of revelation/inspiration. I think the biggest issue in using the word within an LDS context, however, is that implicit in the word invent is the notion that the new creation/idea has *never* existed before and has now come into being. I can see that working for perceived revelation on very "down-to-earth" matters such as inventing the TV so that general conference could be broadcast to millions (I loved that little folk tale growing up). I don't see how it could work in regard to inventing spiritual truth as the LDS Church claims to restore what was once on the Earth but now is lost.

Seth

P.S.

In regard to tone and approach, I very much appreciate Bushman's appeal to LDS readers:

All in all, Inventing Mormonism is a far cry in both spirit and substance from the iconoclastic studies of Mormonism that descend from E. D. Howe and Alexander Campbell to Fawn Brodie and the early Wesley Walters. The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith's history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing. The book makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.

Bushman has demonstrated how believers and non-believers can have a genuine disagreement but still respect each others work.

[_Kishkumen]

Hi Kishkumen,

I like your spin on the word "inventing" and can see how it would apply to the LDS concept of revelation/inspiration. I think the biggest issue in using the word within an LDS context, however, is that implicit in the word invent is the notion that the new creation/idea has *never* existed before and has now come into being. I can see that working for perceived revelation on very "down-to-earth" matters such as inventing the TV so that general conference could be broadcast to millions (I loved that little folk tale growing up). I don't see how it could work in regard to inventing spiritual truth as the LDS Church claims to restore what was once on the Earth but now is lost.

Seth

A couple of brief thoughts: 1. The evolving temple apologetic regarding the Freemasonry issue already allows for more input from Joseph Smith in a way that the word invent would suit; 2. The principle of progressive revelation allows for novelty within restoration. You should talk to Blair Hodges about this.

In regard to tone and approach, I very much appreciate Bushman's appeal to LDS readers:

All in all, Inventing Mormonism is a far cry in both spirit and substance from the iconoclastic studies of Mormonism that descend from E. D. Howe and Alexander Campbell to Fawn Brodie and the early Wesley Walters. The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith's history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing. The book makes a genuine effort to be irenic, and I hope that Mormon readers will accept the work in the spirit in which it is offered.

Bushman has demonstrated how believers and non-believers can have a genuine disagreement but still respect each others work.

I think that is a wonderful model for appreciating good work that comes from another perspective.

[_Gadianton]

You know Sethpayne, I'm glad you brought this up. I hadn't ever really looked at this last one. I took a look at it, and I will need to do a review of this piece. I think I may have a unique angle on it.

[_Kishkumen]

You know Sethpayne, I'm glad you brought this up. I hadn't ever really looked at this last one. I took a look at it, and I will need to do a review of this piece. I think I may have a unique angle on it.

Wow. That is a bizarre review. He lets the confusion of Cache Valley citizens shape impressions early on. Uh, what?

"My cousin Bob, who holds an Masters of Fine Arts in vocal performance, was really thrown for a loop by this book I am about to trash! Ergo, you know it's gotta suck."

Where do they get their editorial guidelines?

10. At FARMS, we find that referring to public outcry in local communities is a fine way to assess objectively the merit of scholarship.

Is that how it reads? Anyone?

[_Gadianton]

yeah, there is a lot of that. and the list of magazine articles that take liberties with Quinn's thesis, which they use as evidence against quinn's thesis.

but what really got me was their complete botching of what Quinn means by New Mormon History. that comes from swallowing Midgley's critiques of NMH hook line and sinker without any attempt at understanding the subject matter on their own.

well, what it appears to me is that apologetics is using their misunderstandings of Quinn as a template to construct their own apologetics from. it blew me away when i realized that. more in an upcoming post.

[_sethpayne]

yeah, there is a lot of that. and the list of magazine articles that take liberties with Quinn's thesis, which they use as evidence against quinn's thesis.

but what really got me was their complete botching of what Quinn means by New Mormon History. that comes from swallowing Midgley's critiques of NMH hook line and sinker without any attempt at understanding the subject matter on their own.

well, what it appears to me is that apologetics is using their misunderstandings of Quinn as a template to construct their own apologetics from. it blew me away when i realized that. more in an upcoming post.

As I read this review the first time I kept asking myself if the review authors and I had read the same book. This isn't Quinn's best book, in my opinion, but the thesis is interesting and much of the evidence compelling. If I had read this review 20x without having read the book itself, I would have no real idea of what Quinn actually argued and wrote.

Also, what in the world is a "homosexual apologist?" The use of the term is 1) odd and 2) offputing because it is used as a pejorative.

I think you have nailed it on the head. Misunderstandings (intentional or not) are being used to prop up criticism of Quinn.

[_Kishkumen]

I think you have nailed it on the head. Misunderstandings (intentional or not) are being used to prop up criticism of Quinn.

And right out of the gate, it would seem. If the educated citizens of Cache Valley were confused, you know there has to be a problem.