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.