Midgley'S "Defending The King And His Kingdom"

[Bob Crockett]

Great article, Bro. Midgley. I agreed entirely with it.

[Calm]

I have just joined this board.

The board is now complete.

[Louis Midgley]

I must admit that I have been pleased by the traffic on this thread. I much appreciate the kind words about my sermon-essay by Scott Lloyd, Bob Crockett and others. And, earlier, I was also pleased when someone who I do not know pointed out that in the list of six items on pp. 138-139 of my essay that one of them could be read as claiming that Rodney Meldrum is in the business of attacking Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. This has, I believe, now been corrected. So I thank the one who called attention to what they considered an error or mistake. If my essay had been published in the old and now cancelled Review, I would have been stuck with this problem. And I would have had no way of correcting it by clarifying what I intended. For various reasons the changes I have now made had to be fitted into the pagination of my essay. Please have a look at pp. 138-139 for the changes I have made. I certainly do not want my name associated with even a hint that I believe that Rodney Meldrum is in the business of attacking Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. My objections to his attempt to peddle his bizarre jingo Book of Mormon geography rest on other grounds. I will, if anyone is interested, spell out my objections in summary form to what I consider Meldrum’s miasma.

One thing that has puzzled me about the comments on my essay on both the Interpreter website and on this board is that I have not why I focused on those who deny that there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. No one seems to realize that doing this was in part my response to a bizarre incidence where Professor Peterson was either ordered or advised not to publish an essay spelling out the recent descent of a former student of mine who even while I was still teaching at BYU in the early 1990s had undergone what he calls a crisis of faith and hence gone missing. My essay contains a subtle reference to some of his recent confident opining about divine things, which include an assertion that (1) there is very little reason to believe that there is a God, (2) that there is very little reason to believe that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) that it makes no sense to hold that a person has to die to somehow overcome the mistakes some other person has made. This last assertion is, of course, not an utterly absurd misunderstanding of the victory over death both of the body and soul made for us by God, which we call the atonement. Please note that if one does not even think there was a person known as Jesus, it makes no sense at all to talk about his having accomplished a thing for humans all of whom face physical death and the abundance of evils found in this world. Such a crude collection of opinions is, from my perspective, clearly anti-Christ in the way it which that label is used in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I am not exactly known for being subtle.

All of this, it turns out, has something to do with the firing of Professor Peterson.

And I wish I had understood that my username would be the name that appears when I post. If someone would email me or otherwise tell me how to change "Louis" to Louis Midgley, I would be thankful for the help. If I end up posting more on this board, I want my identity to be obvious.

[volgadon]

I will, if anyone is interested, spell out my objections in summary form to what I consider Meldrum’s miasma.

Please do. I don't know what bothers me more about Meldrum's position, the jingoism, or the aspersion that those who disagree are unworthy church members.

[Scott Lloyd]

If someone would email me or otherwise tell me how to change "Louis" to Louis Midgley, I would be thankful for the help. If I end up posting more on this board, I want my identity to be obvious.

I admire that attitude. Obviously I agree with it.

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the inner workings of the board to tell you how to make such a change.

[JohnShultz]

My biggest issue with the article is that Midgley continually promotes the idea that only scholars with credentials should be given deference, and that no heed should be given to amateurs. Yet he says that we have a duty to all be apologists. I can see why he believes that, and I respect that, because specialists have training that amateurs do not. But respectfully, how can amateurs be successful apologists if their research is not given the time of day, at least some kind of review by experts to bounce off their ideas off of? Is the expectation that they need to always tow the line and fall in line with the apologists that are specialists in a certain field? Furthermore, what about the fact that many people who are trained in a certain area are commenting on areas that they are not qualified to comment on since their training is in another field. Yet they expect everyone to defer to them on those other areas because they have training in something. I just find the whole thing problematic, and wish it was a more perfect world.

[Bob Crockett]

My biggest issue with the article is that Midgley continually promotes the idea that only scholars with credentials should be given deference, and that no heed should be given to amateurs. Yet he says that we have a duty to all be apologists. I can see why he believes that, and I respect that, because specialists have training that amateurs do not. But respectfully, how can amateurs be successful apologists if their research is not given the time of day, at least some kind of review by experts to bounce off their ideas off of? Is the expectation that they need to always tow the line and fall in line with the apologists that are specialists in a certain field? Furthermore, what about the fact that many people who are trained in a certain area are commenting on areas that they are not qualified to comment on since their training is in another field. Yet they expect everyone to defer to them on those other areas because they have training in something. I just find the whole thing problematic, and wish it was a more perfect world.

If you've never had to defend a dissertation, or go through an exhaustive peer review, it is hard to see the difference between what academics do and what the rest of us low-lifes do. Credentials have great meaning in areas of historical and religious scholarship, at least in my view. Academics with doctorates are entitled to deference. Lou, I've known for many years, at least I think so. He hung out with my grandfather, BYU's Academic VP. Lou has a lot of inside dope about academics.

That doesn't mean to say that the rest of us have no voice. That isn't true. Some without credentials can rise to the top or close to it. Blake Ostler, whose writings I cannot stand but is widely respected by many, is an example. (I don't consider a law degree as "credentials".)

Edited December 12, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[JohnShultz]

If you've never had to defend a dissertation, or go through an exhaustive peer review, it is hard to see the difference between what academics do and what the rest of us low-lifes do. Credentials have great meaning in areas of historical and religious scholarship, at least in my view. Academics with doctorates are entitled to deference. Lou, I've known for many years, at least I think so. He hung out with my grandfather, BYU's Academic VP. Lou has a lot of inside dope about academics.

That doesn't mean to say that the rest of us have no voice. That isn't true. Some without credentials can rise to the top or close to it. Blake Ostler, whose writings I cannot stand but is widely respected by many, is an example. (I don't consider a law degree as "credentials".)

I understand all that, and I respect that. But I know of no "system" where amateurs can rise to the top, especially those with views that are somewhat heretical to the people that are the status quo or that which has an amount of consensus behind it. Amateurs are relegated to Sunstone or something where they can only present their findings if they get lucky enough to get the time of day of the people who are putting on some kind of a conference.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, that certainly was not the case for FARMS Review. Its pages are full of amateur articles, including two of my own. Greg Smith is a good example -- a medical doctor is still an amateur, but the pages are filled with his mind-numbing details. Who knows what MI will publish now; nobody knows.

FAIR's publications are mostly by amateurs.

The new Interpreter website, I note, has among its published articles at least four amateur authors, the most notable being Brant Gardner (although, he is not an "academic," he is a "professional," having published and made money off of books, so I guess he isn't an amateur, but he is an example of how an amateur can rise above the muck). So I don't know that your statement is legit.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[JohnShultz]

Ok then. Maybe a better statement would be that some amateurs are accepted by the powers that be, and others are not...

[Louis Midgley]

It appears that no one is interested in knowing that in my remarks in the section of "Defending the King" entitled "Green Cheese Anyone?" I specifically had in mind some blunt opining by John Dehlin in a Podcast in which he was interviewed.. If Greg Smith's famous censored paper had been published in the censored and then cancelled issue of the Review, the exact language from, what was an alarming and deeply disappointing statement by a former student would have been woven together other similar and related bits of information. Of course, I truly hope that Dehlin has a radical change of mind and heart on this and many other issues.

If one reads the comment on the Interpreter webpage by Robert Smith, he correctly points out that my sermon is too narrowly drawn, since many Latter-day Saints missing during periods of the faith journey and there is always hope and much effort to revive or ignite the spark of faith. No one should be pleased to seen disaffection. And I certainly do not take pleasure in seeing someone I know go missing. My sermon is, among other things, a call for those who once could sing the song of redeeming love to do so again. We come often to partake of a symbolic ritual meal in which we renew our covenants with the Lord. The reason for doing this is that it is possible to fall from grace. And it is, thankfully, also possible to retuurn and remember and begin anew to keep the commandments. My own experience is that for this to happen we all need to face some very hard truths about ourselves and our relationship with divine things.

[rongo]

Lou, when might we read Greg Smith's paper? Will it appear in the Interpreter?

Why has it taken so long to surface after the FARMS Review purge? To what extent has concern about Salt Lake contributed to Greg's paper being sequestered as long as it has?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Thanks!

[Louis Midgley]

I don't know when or even if Greg Smith famous unpublished paper will be published or otherwise made available. It seems that the Brethren have not leaked it, nor have the brethren, or those academic people who have read it. For reasons I will not go into, this actually pleases me.

I don't think that the Brethren had a thing to do with the censorship or quashing of Greg's essay. No one of the Brethren under the current policy can meddle in what goes on at BYU. Only the Trustees acting officially or the First Presidency can set policy or give instructions to the BYU Administration.

I have both read and also copied into my diary the significant language in the memo that was shown to Professor Peterson by the current director of the Maxwell Institute. The way I read that memo, in addition to stating forcefully that the one who drafted it does not agree with, support or accept anything that Dehlin has said or done, it merely speculates that the Brethren may wish to deal with Dehlin in their own time and way. The implication is that Professor Peterson should leave Dehlin to others.

My hunch is that this memo was an attempt to lure Professor Peterson into resigning. If that was the case, it failed, since he immediately withdrew Greg's paper from the list of forthcoming essays for the now cancelled issue of the Rev. This seems to have forced those who wanted to get Professor Peterson out of the Institute to more from Plan A to a hasty Plan B. Be that as it may, he was simply fired by email when he was in Israel. The problem is that someone or ones other than Professor Peterson immediately leaked the resulting exchange of email. This made the news, and thereby sullied Elder Maxwell’s name, which the original memo warned should not be done.

It is not clear to me why a Maxwell Institute employee whose job did not have a thing to do with the Review, intentionally but indirectly informed Dehlin of the existence of Greg's paper. Was it, I wonder, the hope that Dehlin would write email messages appealing for censorship, and hence give an excuse for the memo I mention above urging, suggesting or ordering, depending on how you read it, that Greg’s paper not be published? Be that as it may, in what appears to be a panic, as one might expect, Dehlin sent a series of email messages to various people, including one of the Brethren, in an effort to prevent publication of what was described as a "hit piece." This seems to me to have provided an excuse for the memo (I have mentioned above) that either ordered or suggested, depending on how you read it, that Greg's essay not be published. Professor Peterson, instead of being at all insubordinate, instantly agreed not to publish Greg's paper. Hence what seems to me to have been the eventual firing of Professor Peterson. In any case, he was given the boot.

I am reasonably confident that Dehlin was merely a pawn in a game he did not understand. To put it bluntly, he was used.

It would, I must admit, displease me if it were turn out that Dehlin's recent seeming softening of his objection to the Church of Jesus Christ is not merely an attempt to avoid discipline and hence retain some credibility with those to whom he appeals. He is, however, nothing if not unstable in his opinions. Anyone who has followed his career, knows this to be a fact. He is constantly advancing one after another initiative, and then shutting them down and changing directions, in what can be understood as an effort to get attention. Anyone who has charted his various initiatives will notice instability in his opinions. However, he seems confident that his followers will tolerate his instability. And he could well be right about this. I really hope that this time there has been a genuine change of heart.

In on sense Greg's essay, which has circulated in Salt Lake, has done some good. It may even have sobered my former student and thereby initiated a change of heart. It would please me greatly, if it eventually turns out that this is actually the case. So I hold out hope for Dehlin despite all the previous experience that I and others have had with his constantly shifting opinions and initiatives.

[Calm]

And I wish I had understood that my username would be the name that appears when I post. If someone would email me or otherwise tell me how to change "Louis" to Louis Midgley, I would be thankful for the help. If I end up posting more on this board, I want my identity to be obvious.

I 'reported' your request to the moderators, next time one of them shows up they will likely change it for you hopefully.

[Calm]

I admire that attitude. Obviously I agree with it.

Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the inner workings of the board to tell you how to make such a change.

I am pretty sure only mods can do it.

[Louis Midgley]

It is amazing what one does not notice. I just realized that the title of this thread is wrong. My essay is entitled "Defending the King and His Kingdom." We are part of this kingdom as guests and not because we somehow own it.

[fixed - Ares]

Edited December 13, 2012 by Ares

[Calm]

My biggest issue with the article is that Midgley continually promotes the idea that only scholars with credentials should be given deference, and that no heed should be given to amateurs.

Perhaps you could provide a quote as it doesn't sound like something he'd say to me, though respect for those who have put in the time to seriously study an issue and not just cull material that supports one's own position I can see him promoting.

[volgadon]

Ok then. Maybe a better statement would be that some amateurs are accepted by the powers that be, and others are not...

Just as some professionals are accepted, and some are not.

In this day and age of blogs, boards, and whatnot, however, it is easier to get your views out there than before. If you can demonstrate a good grasp of the sources, and can present cogent arguments, there is no reason for people not to listen to you.

I personally have no degree yet, so what. If I have something to say, I say it.

[Nemesis]

I must admit that I have been pleased by the traffic on this thread. I much appreciate the kind words about my sermon-essay by Scott Lloyd, Bob Crockett and others. And, earlier, I was also pleased when someone who I do not know pointed out that in the list of six items on pp. 138-139 of my essay that one of them could be read as claiming that Rodney Meldrum is in the business of attacking Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. This has, I believe, now been corrected. So I thank the one who called attention to what they considered an error or mistake. If my essay had been published in the old and now cancelled Review, I would have been stuck with this problem. And I would have had no way of correcting it by clarifying what I intended. For various reasons the changes I have now made had to be fitted into the pagination of my essay. Please have a look at pp. 138-139 for the changes I have made. I certainly do not want my name associated with even a hint that I believe that Rodney Meldrum is in the business of attacking Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. My objections to his attempt to peddle his bizarre jingo Book of Mormon geography rest on other grounds. I will, if anyone is interested, spell out my objections in summary form to what I consider Meldrum’s miasma.

One thing that has puzzled me about the comments on my essay on both the Interpreter website and on this board is that I have not why I focused on those who deny that there was ever a Jesus of Nazareth. No one seems to realize that doing this was in part my response to a bizarre incidence where Professor Peterson was either ordered or advised not to publish an essay spelling out the recent descent of a former student of mine who even while I was still teaching at BYU in the early 1990s had undergone what he calls a crisis of faith and hence gone missing. My essay contains a subtle reference to some of his recent confident opining about divine things, which include an assertion that (1) there is very little reason to believe that there is a God, (2) that there is very little reason to believe that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) that it makes no sense to hold that a person has to die to somehow overcome the mistakes some other person has made. This last assertion is, of course, not an utterly absurd misunderstanding of the victory over death both of the body and soul made for us by God, which we call the atonement. Please note that if one does not even think there was a person known as Jesus, it makes no sense at all to talk about his having accomplished a thing for humans all of whom face physical death and the abundance of evils found in this world. Such a crude collection of opinions is, from my perspective, clearly anti-Christ in the way it which that label is used in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. I am not exactly known for being subtle.

All of this, it turns out, has something to do with the firing of Professor Peterson.

And I wish I had understood that my username would be the name that appears when I post. If someone would email me or otherwise tell me how to change "Louis" to Louis Midgley, I would be thankful for the help. If I end up posting more on this board, I want my identity to be obvious.

it will be changed in a few min. Your password should be the same start using Louis Midgley as your username.

Nemesis

[Louis Midgley]

I have been busy today, and I decided to check back to see if this thread was still active. I sense that whatever energy it once had is now gone. But, just in case this is not entirely the case, I want to indicate that I have enjoyed the comments about and also especially the criticisms of my sermon-essay. I must also add that the recent events at the Maxwell Institute have been both painful and very disappointing. I had much invested in that venture One consolation is that in a brief week a large group of volunteers were able to put together a sophisticated substitute for a venture that has been part of my life for over two decades. I wish that whatever it was that took place at the Maxwell Institute could have been done with less intrigue and more grace.

I must also explain that I was never an employee of either FARMS or the Maxwell Institute. I was, instead, merely a volunteer. What I did was a way of placing a modest offering on the altar.

I urge all who have a even a tiny desire to see the Kingdom sustained and defended to keep an eye on and perhaps contributing in some way to the Interpreter.

[cinepro]

The speaker, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve, testified that the marvelous physical and spiritual attributes of humankind are a gift from the Creator, God, and not the random result of a Big Bang somewhere.

It's hardly surprising that an apostle of Jesus Christ would say such a thing, heart surgeon or not.

Here's the quote:

Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!

Thanks Be To God

It just strikes me as odd that members of a Church that are led by such ideas (these too) would attack the ideas of another member of the Church on the basis of their being "bad science". As if everything we teach is vetted for it's congruence with "science".

Edited December 14, 2012 by cinepro

[sethpayne]

I have a response to one complaint set out on this thread to my essay. My critics have noticed that I use the label cultural Mormon to describe the most radical of the new critics who more of less retain at least a nominal membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. Please notice that I use the label in the “Abstract” (p. 127), and again on p. 140 to describe some critics of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I indicate that some of these now also self-identify as New Order Mormons or use other similar or related labels. And on p. 142 I indicate that cultural Mormons (understood my way) are not genuine Saints. If one finds no good reason to believe in God, or that there was even a Jesus of Nazareth, and hence finds the atonement silly, one can hardly qualify as a Saint. And there is at least one person who has boasted of holding just such an opinion while also giving advice to others about dealing with doubts.

Have I somehow misused the expression cultural Mormon? I don’t think so. Why? One rather good reason is that I was the one who fashioned that label. See my essay entitled “Secular Relevance of the Gospel,” Dialogue 4/4 (Winter 1969): 76-85. It seems that without knowing the history of that convenient label, someone insists that I misuse “the word cultural Mormon throughout the article”–that I use “the phrase cultural Mormon incorrectly.” My critic, who I must admit I do not know, defines a “cultural Mormon” as “one who does not care and simply participates in the church because it is socially beneficial to them. This group is not interested in the doctrine or history per say.” From my point of view, this is rubbish.

I fashioned the expression cultural Mormon from the German word sometimes used after WW II for the liberal Protestantism against those who were busy advancing what was called Protestant Neo-Orthodox (or crises or dialectical theology)–that is, the dogma then being set out by Karl Barth and his followers. My LDS models for such a one were folks like Sterling McMurrin and his followers. If those folks were not interested in “doctrine or history,” then exactly what interested them about Mormon things? The Mutual Improvement Association and Ward dances?

Hi Lou,

I'm surprised that you have never met someone who retains church membership to maintain family relationships etc... they may (or may not) have an interest in doctrine/history but are certainly a part of Mormon culture. Someone who chooses to engage Mormon culture without accepting the Church's metaphysical truth claims.

Heck, I know and atheist who regularly attends and engages in service projects for his Elder's quorum in American Fork.

Seth

[canard78]

I have been busy today, and I decided to check back to see if this thread was still active. I sense that whatever energy it once had is now gone. But, just in case this is not entirely the case, I want to indicate that I have enjoyed the comments about and also especially the criticisms of my sermon-essay. I must also add that the recent events at the Maxwell Institute have been both painful and very disappointing. I had much invested in that venture One consolation is that in a brief week a large group of volunteers were able to put together a sophisticated substitute for a venture that has been part of my life for over two decades. I wish that whatever it was that took place at the Maxwell Institute could have been done with less intrigue and more grace.

I must also explain that I was never an employee of either FARMS or the Maxwell Institute. I was, instead, merely a volunteer. What I did was a way of placing a modest offering on the altar.

I urge all who have a even a tiny desire to see the Kingdom sustained and defended to keep an eye on and perhaps contributing in some way to the Interpreter.

Hi, thanks for participating in the thread. It's useful to get the chance to speak directly.

There's one thing I'd seek your clarification on:

Has the Jesus-myth ideology had any impact on Latter-day Saints? Probably not, since most of the Saints who go missing do so for other than genuinely intellectual reasons. Their stereotyped exit-stories indicate that they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants.

I think there are two possible interpretations for this statement and I wanted to clarify what you meant.

I would agree that the vast majority of the +/-70% of membership who are less active "do so for other than genuinely intellectual reasons." Most less actives stop because they lose interest in the church, often soon after baptism. The majority that I have met in various guises (missionary, home teacher, Branch President) are not even aware of the 'intellectual issues' and rarely look them up as a way of justification.

I would imagine, however, that your statement was not directed towards the general less-active membership and more towards the vocal online minority who cite intellectual issues as their problem and cause of innactivity.

One what basis can you be certain you have got it the right way round? What research have you done to show that "they look for intellectual support for their rejection of their faith only after they have made the decision not to be faithful to their covenants?"

As members I can understand why we make ourselves believe this. It is disconcerting for us to think a member in good standing could walk away based on intellectual issues and break covenants later.

The uncomfortable reality is that some people wrestle with intellectual issues while keeping covenants and at the end of the process leave the church. The fact that many of them cite similar so-called "stereotyped" issues is only proof that there are some thorny and sometimes unanswered challenges to Mormon/Christian theology.

I speak from experience given my wife is no longer active and followed this pattern. She kept her covenants during her study and stopped believing while holding a leadership calling and temple recommend.

Having gone through a process of studying extensively from multiple sources, partly in the hope of answering her concerns, I can see how it happens. I choose to stay because what I know, believe, love and hope for is not outweighed by what challenges and disrupts my reasons for staying.

Another thought if I may. Those who come to websites like MI are often right in the middle of their intellectual/faith struggle and process of discovery. My concern with MI choosing to finish volume 2 of the MI journal with (what you call) a sermon, was how potentially divisive it was.

You described a level of faith, commitment and certainty that would sound alien to some of the people who come to you in times of need. I have no problem with you bearing testimony but the impression I got when reading was you seemed to suggest 'you are either with Him (or with MI) or against Him (or MI)' you are either a defender of the kingdom or an anti-christ/anti-mormon. Perhaps I read to much into it?

Those who are struggling with the hesitancy and doubt of unanswered questions don't feel like 'defenders'. So it would be a shame to push them away given the alternative your article implies they might be.

Finally, I'd like to take a moment to thank you and all at FARMs/FAIR/NAMI and now MI. Your collective hard work has been a spiritual leaning post on many occasions.

[Tacenda]

Thanks for Canards post. I forgot or wasn't aware of his wife's struggles that are similar to mine and so many others out there. Some of the most active true believers fall into this catagory, not too many Jack Mormons have it happen. I know the current leaders of the church see the need for more transparency to innoculate the youth so they won't go through the pangs of feeling lied to with the current curriculum. It's just slow because the curriculum dept across the street are alot slower to see the need or perhaps concerned how it might effect the members.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Tacenda

[canard78]

Thanks for Canards post. I forgot or wasn't aware of his wife's struggles that are similar to mine and so many others out there. Some of the most active true believers fall into this catagory, not too many Jack Mormons have it happen. The churches leaders see the need for more transparency to innoculate the youth so they won't go through the pangs of feeling lied to with the current curriculum. It's just slow because the curriculum dept across the street are alot slower to see the need or perhaps concerned how it might effect the members.

Thanks Tacenda, I don't think I'd mentioned it before. It was in some ways challenging but in more ways enriching.

It took me a while to accept it wasn't due to some underlying spiritual/worthiness issue (it wasn't). I have grown to love and respect her even more and realise that she is sincere when she feels more at peace out than in. I believe her.