415 replies to this topic

[rongo]

I can't think of a single thing that the Bradford group has produced. Have they even put out a single issue of the Review or the Journal?

How long of a honeymoon period will they get before the pressure builds?

I'm a little hazy about how their product will differ from "FARMS Classic." Has Gerald Bradford or anyone else said anything anywhere about how, specifically, their approach and style will differ?

[Kevin Christensen]

I just got a copy of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and an Insights.

For Bradford's approach, read his essay here:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640

Quote

I take a more traditional approach and view religious studies in terms of the following characteristics: (1) It necessarily requires the study of more than just one tradition; in other words, it is inherently a comparative, even cross-cultural, endeavor. (2) It advocates studying religious traditions in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges to religion that often function much the same way in society. (3) Because of the multidimensional makeup of systems of faith, it requires that such phenomena be studied from the perspective of several disciplines. (4) It proceeds on the basis of maintaining a distinction between descriptive and structural studies on the one hand and attempts at grappling with religious value judgments and truth claims on the other. (5) And, of particular importance, it requires that students learn how to approach their subjects from the vantage point of those they are studying.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[rongo]

Is this the first issue of the Journal or Insights since the changing of the guard? Are you comfortable comparing the relative quality of the two in your opinion?

FWIW, I find the snippet you posted to be very wordy and flowery, but not to say very much. It's not like the deposed "old guard" didn't "view religious studies" as "study[ing] more than just one tradition," study religion "in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges," or "approach their subjects from the vantage point of those they are studying."

If anything, I think that the B.H. Roberts-esque approach of the "old guard" did a better job of "studying religion in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges" than the new one apparently strives to . . .

Edited by rongo, 06 February 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Kevin Christensen, on 06 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I just got a copy of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and an Insights.

For Bradford's approach, read his essay here:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640


Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Well that certainly sounds reasonable, but where's the beef?  

[mfbukowski]

rongo, on 06 February 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

If anything, I think that the B.H. Roberts-esque approach of the "old guard" did a better job of "studying religion in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges" than the new one apparently strives to . . .

I don't know if that's true really.  I frankly don't think anyone is brave enough to take that on because they are all employed by BYU.  All I have seen is a lot of p***y-footing around the philosophical issues in very very carefully worded articles, all affirming traditional approaches in the final analysis.

I think it will be interesting to see how this shakes out.  I think there might ultimately be a conflict of interest between Bradford's approach and what has probably been tacitly or directly understood as "acceptable" at BYU.

I have no clue of course if I am correct- I am a totally outside observer just watching the style of argumentation I have seen, and I really don't pretend to have any understanding of the politics of these issues, having never taken a single class at BYU in my life.

I think that the more apologetic stance of Dr. Peterson et al were acceptable exactly because they were apologetic and therefore defending the church by definition.   But I am not sure that the openness that Bradford supposedly seeks will actually fly.

But on the other hand, I know nothing about it, and presume Bradford knows exactly what he is doing after being in that milieu for all these years.

On the other hand, the way he handled the takeover throws a lot of doubt on whether or not he knows what he is doing, as well as the lack of production since it all happened doesn't help any.

Oh well- we shall see.  I don't have a clue what I am talking about anyway.

[Kenngo1969]

mfbukowski, on 06 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Well that certainly sounds reasonable, but where's the beef?  

Well, I'm sure it's gotta be here someplace ...   Wait!  There it is!  I found i— . . . Oops!    Sorry!   False alarm.  That's not the beef; that's just a pee-kuhl.

OK, so there's nobody else here who's a fan of old Wendy's commercials!  

[juliann]

I hope what they produce will be a little more reader friendly than that description of what they will produce.  

[Scott Lloyd]

rongo, on 06 February 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Is this the first issue of the Journal or Insights since the changing of the guard? Are you comfortable comparing the relative quality of the two in your opinion?

FWIW, I find the snippet you posted to be very wordy and flowery, but not to say very much. It's not like the deposed "old guard" didn't "view religious studies" as "study[ing] more than just one tradition," study religion "in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges," or "approach their subjects from the vantage point of those they are studying."

If anything, I think that the B.H. Roberts-esque approach of the "old guard" did a better job of "studying religion in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges" than the new one apparently strives to . . .

I was thinking of this last night.

Deeply saddened though I was by the events of last summer, I can't say I'm altogether regretful now. The chain of events did spark and give impetus to the rapid development by Peterson and company of the Interpreter Foundation, an enterprise that is more vibrant, energetic and technologically nimble than could have been achieved by the old Mormon Studies Review under the existing middle management at BYU.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 06 February 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[rongo]

juliann, on 06 February 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I hope what they produce will be a little more reader friendly than that description of what they will produce.  

Exactly. That's what I meant by "wordy and flowery, but not saying very much." If that essay by Bradford is any indication, this "new and improved" approach will be nigh unreadable.

[poulsenll]

Kevin Christensen, on 06 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I just got a copy of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and an Insights.

For Bradford's approach, read his essay here:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640


Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Mine came in the mail today. My subscription as noted on the envelope ended on 5/31/2012. I hope this does not indicate future expectation. Otherwise there will be few new subscribers.

Larry P

[Daniel Peterson]

My friend Paul Hoskisson is still the editor of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture.  He's done a good job, but I've heard rumors that there's not much in the pipeline for future issues.

My friend Brian Hauglid has nearly a year to produce a new issue of Studies in the Bible in Antiquity.  We'll see what happens at that point.

The Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review) has been suspended.  It may or may not ever reappear.  No new editor or group of editors has been named.

A book by Jim Faulconer was just published, but it had been in the works for a long time.

John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex is now, I'm told, at the press.  But it had been in the works for even longer.

Are there any other books in the offing for the immediate future?  None that I know of, although I do know of a planned volume.  (It was already being planned at least two years ago.)

The future of the Maxwell Institute as a presence among Church members is, I think, quite obscure right now.

Very sad.  Completely unnecessary.

But The Interpreter Foundation is flourishing.

[calmoriah]

Daniel Peterson, on 06 February 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

But The Interpreter Foundation is flourishing.

Are there any plans of moving into producing books such as Sorenson's Mormon Codex anytime in the near future or is the intent to stay web based for now?  There are publishers out there that can cover that area already if the MI does not continue to do so such as Kofford Books so I don't see an immediate need, but am just interested in the general attitude about it.

[Daniel Peterson]

We're actively planning on publishing books.

[calmoriah]

Excellent.  The more publishers out there for that type of book the better.  Even with other small publishers available, they just don't have the funding available to publish all the books that are needed.

[Daniel Peterson]

We already have several potential books in the pipeline.

It'll probably take more money than we currently have in the bank to produce them, but that's part of my job.

[The Nehor]

Do you think they would mind if I use some excerpts in a work presentation? I am doing a presentation on communication focusing on clarity and avoiding meaningless jargon and I think I could use some of this.

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL.  'Twould be funny.

.

Edited by Daniel Peterson, 06 February 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The Nehor, on 06 February 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

Do you think they would mind if I use some excerpts in a work presentation? I am doing a presentation on communication focusing on clarity and avoiding meaningless jargon and I think I could use some of this.

I work for a historical journal, and this kind of language reminds me of when we get submissions from anthropologists who think they can do history.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan, 06 February 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Carl Griffin]

Hi, all. First time poster, and here in something of a business capacity as an employee of the Maxwell Institute. Since we’re receiving email inquiries about this thread, asking specifically about Dan’s post above (#11), I thought it might be helpful to address some of these points right here at the source. We’ve also been asked about rumors of layoffs and whether we are experiencing financial difficulties. Those rumors also are said to come from this board, but I’m not sure from what threads. The following is from the body of the email reply we’re sending out:

(1) We’re not planning any changes for the Journal and, as you can see from the last issue, it’s never been stronger. I don’t have the benefit of Dan’s unnamed sources and have never heard any such rumors. But I fact-checked Dan’s information with the Journal’s editor, Paul Hoskisson, and Paul says submissions are as strong as ever.

(2) As we said in our public statement last year, we are approaching the relaunch of the Review deliberately, and have set no timetable, but will announce the new editor as soon as one is appointed. Since last summer, we’ve met personally with more than a dozen leading Mormon Studies scholars to discuss the editorship and editorial direction of the new journal. And since this is a university journal, all prospective candidates for editor have required the vetting and approval of the university administration as well as, for BYU faculty, college approval. So this is not a fast process, but I can tell you that we are very far along with it.

(3) We currently have (by my count) 27 books in our editorial pipeline. These are all titles that have been accepted for publication, and more proposed titles are pouring in. Two more manuscripts have come under review just this past week. I have a full page, front and back, of proposed titles that came out of a single lunch meeting with a group of scholars last week. However, our publishing resources are modest and we have a number of priorities to balance. In addition to our journals, newsletter and website, we have launched an initiative to republish our entire back catalog, both books and periodicals, in modern digital formats. This is requiring a heavy editorial investment. Even so, I expect we will publish at least 6-7 new books this year, though we only announce specifics on our titles at the time of publication.

(4) I can confirm that we just laid off two staff members, but as with all employment matters, we are unable to share the particulars with the public. Our finances, as is the case for the rest of the university, are also confidential. But I can tell you that, unlike most other units, the university only covers about one-third of our costs, and the rest of our budget we have to raise through fundraising. Thus we always have to deal with financial insecurity. Since staffing represents most of our annual costs, our staffing has often been adjusted over the years, usually downward. However, I’m pleased to say that we have just hired a new Public Communications Specialist, Blair Hodges, who will be starting with us tomorrow (Feb. 11).

I’ve just jumped onto the board to help address the questions raised here, so I won’t be participating in any discussion. But anyone with questions like these is welcome to contact me or Blair Hodges anytime at the Maxwell Institute (801-422-9229).

[calmoriah]

Thank you for supplying this info.

Does anyone know where do announcements about books being published get posted...as in a deal's been made and we have it to look forward to, not just about to come off the presses?  I like to see what's coming up

Congrats to Blair, sounds like a dream job for him.

Edited by calmoriah, 10 February 2013 - 01:35 PM.