I had started to realize through my own reading that the typical path of Mormon studies was to lead away from the questions raised by the scriptures and back to safe ground in firmly established and correlated Mormon Doctrine.
I remember reading (in the early 1980's) through the standard works, and reading the Institute Manuals along with them. These were big hefty manuals and I felt certain that they would help me understand the scriptures better.
And I did learn quite a bit from the manuals.
But time and again I kept finding strange and intriguing things in the scriptures (particularly the Doctrine and Covenants) that I would have a question about, and then when I read the accompanying chapter from the manual, the question was either not addressed, or addressed in such a way as to change the meaning of the verse to make it accord with Mormon Doctrine.
It was a few years later I read Midgley's review, and found it speaking to me at the point I was in my spiritual development.
Here is a link to the review for any who are interested.
https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscr ... 4&index=12
Let me see if I can find a few of the quotes from this excellent review that meant so much to me at the time, and still do today.
. . . it is a mistake for us to claim to possess the one and only proper mode of interpretation and explication, since, when we begin to focus on any one theme or thread to the exclusion of the whole and especially in opposition to the legitimate work of others on other threads or themes, we threaten to warp the world that is called into existence by our text.
And I couldn't believe he said the next thing about McConkie and Millet!
From my perspective, the Book of Mormon signals that far more is going on in the restoration achieved through its means than merely an awkward way of providing a random assortment of theological gems that we can fit into our own schema.
That is exactly how I had come to feel about not only most LDS doctrinal writing, but all the church manuals, as well!
It is ironic that, as we praise the Book of Mormon, we may indulge an urge to systematize and even elaborate where the sacred text–one that should function as our canon–remains silent. From the desire to have tidy synopses of Mormon doctrines, we may sow seeds of contention, and end up disputing over what we may even want to identify as the doctrines of salvation.
Yes! I had come to have similar feelings to the correlated doctrine; that it was attempting to box me in instead of allowing me to explore. And I couldn't help note how Midgley intentionally used the term "doctrines of salvation," which he knew perfectly well was the title of the three-volume compendium Bruce R. McConkie (Joseph Fielding McConkie's dad) had made of Joseph Fielding Smith's writings, and after whom Bruce R. McConkie named his son, one of the two authors of this commentary. A master stroke!
The flaws in Doctrinal Commentary are ones common to much of Mormon scholarship. The tendency is to divert attention away from the message and meaning in the text under consideration, and back towards what we already know. Such efforts do not enhance our understanding; they tend to make the very teachings they celebrate seem merely sentimental and insubstantial.
This was a godsend to me! Not only did Midgley see the problem in this book, but also in other books relating to Mormon studies. I wasn't alone in thinking this! You can imagine how much this meant to me, especially before the age of the Internet!
I know that from time to time, Louis Midgley has come in for criticism on this board, but I wanted to make it known that he has written some things that have been very important for me personally.
And for that, I am sincerely grateful to him.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Midgley's name. To me it was typical apologist B.S. 