The idea that a “scholar” must necessarily end up with “angels don’t bring books” or “dead bodies do not come back to life” will end up reading both the Book of Mormon and the Bible quite differently than those who really want both to simply be true.
I must confess that I don't understand this sentence of Professor Midgley's.
You beat me to it. That sentence is a garbled mess and I suspect two different sentences got fused in a draft.
There are two sentences/ideas here.
One sentence is about what Midgley thinks is the secular definition of "scholarship" and would be something like this:
"The idea that a "scholar" must necessarily believe that "angels don't bring books" or "dead bodies do not come back to life" in order to be thought of as a scholar puts a limitation on his reading."
Another sentence is a contrast between how a secular scholar and a believing scholar would read:
"He will read the Book of Mormon and the Bible much differently than a believer would."
However, these two potential sentences have been fused so that "idea" has become the referent of the action "will end up reading" and not "scholar."
To illustrate by using a parenthetical: The idea (that a “scholar” must necessarily end up with “angels don’t bring books” or “dead bodies do not come back to life”) will end up reading both the Book of Mormon and the Bible quite differently than those who really want both to simply be true.
But the problems of this sentence isn't even limited to syntax. That last bit is also oddly problematic. The "others" who read differently apparently do so not on the basis of their firm belief or even testimony, but simply because they want such stories to be true.
All in all this a sentence even more baffling that those I regularly run across in Freshman Comp.