Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Gadianton »

Lou Midgley, life-long friend of The Mormon Interpreter President and Chairman, fought out the competition during an intense peer review process this week and secured the coveted Friday Night publication spot for his essay criticizing Marjorie Newton's work on the Maori Saints. My first impression of professor Midgley's review was positive: I was impressed with Midgley's abstract, which gets to the point. Lately, the Interpreter "attack" pieces have abstracts that are nearly paper length themselves, presumably to ensure the reader is exposed to as many barbs against the perceived enemies of Mopologetics in as short of space as possible. Midgley showed great restrained to provide the reader with a short and cogent summary of his paper and should be commended for it.

The body of his essay is another matter. I don't know much about Newton's work or the history of the Mormon church in New Zealand (Midgley uses the term 'Mormon' 172 times in the essay) and so maybe those better versed in this epoch will have greater appreciation for Midgley's efforts here, but personally, despite a strong abstract, I found the majority of the paper's contents a little odd, and unexpectedly, given what the paper is presumed to be about, the oddness twists and turns into a crescendo where none other than the LGT itself is vigorously defended from assault.

The paper begins with Midgley conflicted over Newton. He seems to regard Newton as a credible academic to some degree, but it's all too predictable. Tell me what you make of this statement early on:

Midgley wrote:I was pleased when Tiki and Temple was published in 2012.4 It is a fine, faith-affirming narrative history of the Church of Jesus Christ in New Zealand.

Is it just me, or is professor Midgley saying that the book Tiki and the Temple is trustworthy because it's a "fine, faith-affirming narrative history?" Is that really what it comes down to? If so, it's no surprise that conflict creeps in when Newton makes claims elsewhere that aren't so flattering:

Midgley wrote:In addition, she claims that “American Mormon cultural imperialism” and has required Māori Saints to abandon large portions of their culture...there has been much Māori/LDS missionary mythmaking as well as connivance in fabricating miracle stories

If faith-affirming implies scholarly credibility, it's no surprise that criticism is accounted for by an "agenda" that's been in the making from the outset of the author's work; seeded many years ago. But I have to stop right here and ask, do the Mopologists really not see that just because Mopologetics is entirely agenda driven, that it isn't so surprising to find good faith elsewhere? I mean, I think there's plenty of good stuff out there -- when a Ford or Chevy is reviewed and good points and bad points are made, I don't just assume that the good points are all valid while the bad points are false, and reveal a hidden "agenda" that "constitutes a puzzle".

Midgley wrote:They did not, however, make known how they came to know about her agenda

Midgley wrote:In an effort to discover the source of her agenda

Midgley wrote:Newton’s Agenda

Midgley wrote:I therefore sought signs of this concern — and hence her agenda

(mere "sign of concern" implies an agenda, and deep state conspiracy!)

Midgley wrote:There are some signs of this agenda

Midgley wrote:This constitutes a puzzle

Midgley wrote:Clues to solving this puzzle

At any rate, heat up a bag of popcorn and let's get to the nuts and bolts of Midgley's concern. Midgley's bridled disgust only runs over the cup as Newton's work to show the Maori are culturally displaced, in part thanks to Mormon and American influences, takes lightly the sacrosanct Limited Geography Theory to service her case. It goes something like this: According to Midgley, Newton claims that the Maori Mormons have long believed themselves to be remnants of the Lamanites and the Book of Mormon is "their book". But "DNA evidence" has forced the Mopologists to invent the Limited Geography Theory, which has been officially adopted by the Church, and so the credibility of the Maori's myth about themselves erodes.

Migdley counters two parts of this alleged claim. First, he contends that the Moari don't view themselves as literal remnants of the Lamanites. Don't ask me, I have no idea how they perceive themselves, but Midgley's evidence?

Midgley wrote:The Book of Mormon was read by the older Māori I knew in 1950–1952 as “their story” in the sense that it was a tribal history whose  narrative was very much like their own

Uh huh...his personal missionary experience in New Zealand. He cites no scholarly evidence to the contrary (nor does he cite Newton's reasoning for her position).

But what really gets him going:

Midgley wrote:The flatly false assertion that DNA studies by Southerton and Murphy led John Sorenson to fashion a limited geography for the Book of Mormon

LOL! I didn't see where he outright showed that this is what she said, but assuming he's correct, the impiety of questioning the LGT is only rivled by suggesting that Sorenson himself got owned by Southerton and Murphy! No wonder the apologists are pissed!

For those looking for a sneak preview into the kind of material taught in Doctor Scratch's advanced courses on Mopologetics, I'll let you in on something. The outrage here isn't specifically over the suggestion about DNA. The apologists are very sensitive about how one describes the birth of the LGT, generally speaking. Unless you're looking for a knuckle sandwich, don't ever tell an apologist to his face that the LGT was a response to DNA, or lack of evidence, or anything like that. In the myths of Mopologetics, the LGT was motivated in an entirely positive manner, from an untainted, honest reading of the Book of Mormon itself, where walking distances were the main consideration and it was concluded that the Book of Mormon couldn't possibly be the epic tale it was assumed to be. The apologists have been uninterested in archaeology for the most part because most of the population was "others" and the Book of Mormon players occupied a tiny spot in the New World where they were ultimately snuffed out for good, and the lack of evidence just proves they were destroyed as described. If a city called Zarahemla and city called Manti were unearthed, but more than afternoon jaunt away from each other, the apologists would have no interest.

It was quite a tour around the world to get to the destination, the insulting of the LGT, a matter that had to be addressed in print, and I hope those who read the paper will find it at least five percent as enjoyable as I did.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Kishkumen »

Midgley is a diehard polemicist. He can’t help himself. Great review of the review, Dean Robbers!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I see that very little has changed in Midgley's approach, though I wonder if this essay was, uh, shall we say "co-written," because some of the quirks of Midgley's prose appear to have been scrubbed out of this. But the gossipy, "dirt-digging" approach, complete with them surreptitiously passing around a copy of Newton's dissertation, is back in full-swing. It's like a reincarnation of the old FARMS Review.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Doctor Scratch wrote:I see that very little has changed in Midgley's approach, though I wonder if this essay was, uh, shall we say "co-written," because some of the quirks of Midgley's prose appear to have been scrubbed out of this. But the gossipy, "dirt-digging" approach, complete with them surreptitiously passing around a copy of Newton's dissertation, is back in full-swing. It's like a reincarnation of the old FARMS Review.


When he gets his resurrecion, I am more than certain he shall request a revival at minimum of the FARMS Review so he can carry on into eternity blasting the idiotic thinking of the apostate galactic aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy as well. It won't surprise me in the least if Elohim calls him to be the Mission President of the Andromeda Galactic Mission for the Milky Way Galaxy Mormons Church of Jesus Christ of Milky Way Saints. One of the future apostles to that galactic mission is sure to prophesy that in another millenium or so, there is bound to be over 200,000 new missionaries!!! :wink:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_cwald
_Emeritus
Posts: 4443
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:53 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _cwald »

Great OP. Thanks.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby

Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

Gadianton, thank you for this excellent and utterly devastating OP.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Simon Southerton
_Emeritus
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Simon Southerton »

Gadianton wrote:But what really gets him going:

Midgley wrote:The flatly false assertion that DNA studies by Southerton and Murphy led John Sorenson to fashion a limited geography for the Book of Mormon

LOL! I didn't see where he outright showed that this is what she said, but assuming he's correct, the impiety of questioning the LGT is only rivled by suggesting that Sorenson himself got owned by Southerton and Murphy! No wonder the apologists are pissed!

I'd be very surprised if Marjorie Newton made the claim Midgley is upset about. She is a much better scholar than old Lou. What is certainly true is that virtually all ordinary Australian and Kiwi Mormons were unaware of the limited geography excuses prior to the arrival of the Internet, which happened to coincide with the DNA issue appearing. Lou would like to believe the Limited Geography was far more widely accepted back then.
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama
_Simon Southerton
_Emeritus
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Simon Southerton »

Gadianton wrote:According to Midgley, Newton claims that the Maori Mormons have long believed themselves to be remnants of the Lamanites and the Book of Mormon is "their book". But "DNA evidence" has forced the Mopologists to invent the Limited Geography Theory, which has been officially adopted by the Church, and so the credibility of the Maori's myth about themselves erodes.

Midgley counters two parts of this alleged claim. First, he contends that the Moari don't view themselves as literal remnants of the Lamanites. Don't ask me, I have no idea how they perceive themselves, but Midgley's evidence?


Midgley is wrong. I was a member for 20 years in Sydney and had many Maori friends in the church. They believed they were the literal descendants of Lehi and always referred to themselves as Lamanites. I suspect this was mostly because of their skin colour. Go to any church library in the Pacific and you will find heaps of material about the Kon Tiki voyage of Thor Heyerdahl.
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal."
"Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Gadianton »

Simon Southerton wrote:Midgley is wrong. I was a member for 20 years in Sydney and had many Maori friends in the church. They believed they were the literal descendants of Lehi and always referred to themselves as Lamanites.


Wow. Thank you. It's amazing that citing personal experience as a missionary didn't trip him up in the rigorous peer review process of this scholarly journal.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Stem
_Emeritus
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:21 pm

Re: Midgley defends the LGT -- from New Zealand???

Post by _Stem »

Simon Southerton wrote:Midgley is wrong. I was a member for 20 years in Sydney and had many Maori friends in the church. They believed they were the literal descendants of Lehi and always referred to themselves as Lamanites. I suspect this was mostly because of their skin colour. Go to any church library in the Pacific and you will find heaps of material about the Kon Tiki voyage of Thor Heyerdahl.



Not just Maori but basically any Pacific Island convert has been given the impression by the Church that they are lamanites. I really don't see how he's claiming otherwise. Saying Hagoth was a Nephite doesn't free the church from this.
Post Reply