What Has The New Farms Produced?

[Calm]

I think many people will find the new review to be a vibrant and vital publication.

Any estimate on when the new issue will be out (or did I miss this in Carl Griffin's comments though I do remember someone---him or Blair---saying something along the lines of being close to having a new editor)?

[Kristian]

Any estimate on when the new issue will be out (or did I miss this in Carl Griffin's comments though I do remember someone---him or Blair---saying something along the lines of being close to having a new editor)?

Don't want to make promises for the new editor, but I'd be very surprised if you don't see it launched before the end of the year. Blair will be doing the drum roll, so watch his posts for actual news.

[Calm]

Don't want to make promises for the new editor, but I'd be very surprised if you don't see it launched before the end of the year. Blair will be doing the drum roll, so watch his posts for actual news.

Thank you. As I said before, I am looking forward to seeing actual content as I think that is the best way to figure out the "new direction" (besides the positive nature of having more publications in general).

[Kristian]

Thank you. As I said before, I am looking forward to seeing actual content as I think that is the best way to figure out the "new direction" (besides the positive nature of having more publications in general).

I think that's the sentiment of those running the Institute today - they're more interested in talking about what been accomplished and only reluctantly get drawn into talking about plans etc.

[rongo]

Hopefully Carl's post helped disabuse you of any notion that the Institute has been brought down!

It actually had the opposite effect. His pointed refusal to name any of the 5-6 books expected out this year (after pointedly dropping that number) tends to feed the skepticism, I think.

I actually think there is more excitement and enthusiasm than there has ever been for the work of the Institute.

I actually think the "Carl, Blair, and Kristian" rapid-response tag team in this thread, with what appear to be correlated talking points, tend to give a "Baghdad Bob" impression more than anything else.

More excitement and enthusiasm than there has ever been before? Do you really think that, or is that what the "united front" needs to show in this thread?

[LifeOnaPlate]

In other words the new regime does not like classic FARMS. That's obvious.

On the other hand it's too bad that neither you, nor Carl, nor Morgan, nor Jerry have ever written a single apologetic article among the lot of you to show the rest of us how apologetics should have been done.

There are many ways to do apologetics, of course. My first publication was actually in the FARMS Review. I'm still grateful to Dan and others for giving me the opportunity to publish, an untested, unknown young guy like me. I reviewed Shawn McCraney's book. It was intended then to be an example of how I thought apologetics should be done. No acerbic acrostics, no cheap shots, no chuckle jokes, no insinuations about character. I tried my best to take the book seriously despite its serious shortcomings. Restraint, diplomacy and charity were as important to me as rigor and accuracy. I even had McCraney read it before it was published. Unfortunately, the editor changed my original title despite my protestation, so it is forever saddled with a title that clashes heavily with its content. Since then I've gone on to write a lot of book reviews. I expect to continue in that vein for a while yet.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=21&num=2&id=774

Back to work!

[sethpayne]

There are many ways to do apologetics, of course. My first publication was actually in the FARMS Review. I'm still grateful to Dan and others for giving me the opportunity to publish, an untested, unknown young guy like me. I reviewed Shawn McCraney's book. It was intended then to be an example of how I thought apologetics should be done. No acerbic acrostics, no cheap shots, no chuckle jokes, no insinuations about character. I tried my best to take the book seriously despite its serious shortcomings. Restraint, diplomacy and charity were as important to me as rigor and accuracy. I even had McCraney read it before it was published. Unfortunately, the editor changed my original title despite my protestation, so it is forever saddled with a title that clashes heavily with its content. Since then I've gone on to write a lot of book reviews. I expect to continue in that vein for a while yet.

http://maxwellinstit...21&num=2&id=774

Back to work!

An excellent paper indeed, Blair.

[William Schryver]

Rest assured Bill, that Dan's departure caused hefty amounts of havoc (as he intended) among our subscribers, donors and staff. It's been tough to fill the void. In some ways the void will never be filled. For example, I'm not sure that the kind of academic research that most of us do is quite so attractive to donors as commercial apologetics (you fund, we defend). Nonetheless, the Institute was always more than Dan (as Dan no doubt will be the first to note).

"Commercial apologetics?" Well, isn't that just wonderful. You've taken the overtly anti-Mormon term "mopologetics," and invented a comparable term that can be used in "polite company," and yet still convey the same degree of derision. Perhaps more.

Wow! What a revelation your utterance of this phrase is, Kristian. It now explains, at least to me, the real nature of the envy and resentment that are at the root of what has happened at the MI.

[sethpayne]

I'm sure that's true. But I note that you don't object to the fact Dan was fired, only to the grossly unprofessional way he was fired. (And who with a modicum of ethical sense doesn't object to that?)

At any rate, life has taught me that some people are more loyal to friends who have been betrayed and slandered than others.

Holy cow you really do live in a bubble.

In the real world, Bill, employment is generally "at will." This means that a person can be hired or fired at the pleasure of either themselves or their employer. Ethics have nothing to do with it. If the leader of an org wants the org to move a certain direction but top management isn't on board ... you replace top management. Happens every single day in corporate America. I've been laid off several times due to the economy, shifting strategy, etc...

In any case, I find it highly amusing that you label Dan's firing/resignation as immoral. Immorality is not defined by what we do or do not like.

In regards to the enthusiasm ..... again, you are in a bubble. The Mormon Studies world -- a world much larger than you may imagine -- is thrilled with the new direction of the MI. They like the new MI but either don't know or don't care about leadership changes.

[William Schryver]

Classic FARMS though... I'd be happy to engage in a thread entirely devoted to the merits and limits of the classic Farms approach to scripture.

I think that would be an extremely worthwhile debate -- one in which I, for one, would be sure to participate.

[sethpayne]

Yes, Dan's participation is so strongly sought for that Bradford kicked him out of his office, does not invite him to administrative meetings, won't let him go to fund raising meetings, and won't talk to Dan. The new administrative model of NAMIRS.

What a shocker!

Bradford has been publicly attacked due the MI changes for months now. Dan has played a part in drumming up the criticism.

Why on earth would Bradford want to invite someone to his table who constantly and persistently attacks him online?

(Note to Dan: Again, I don't have an opinion on how your firing happened etc... or whether you are justified in criticizing Bradford. Maybe you are .... I'm just pointing out that after you began the public criticism I would have been surprised had he greeted you with open arms at MI meetings)

[William Schryver]

I'm not an apologist. I have a different temperament. I certainly intend to write on LDS texts over the next few years. However, I don't value the apologetic imperatives. There is a great deal to be said about our texts that is enlightening and faith-promoting but that doesn't require us to be polemical. Apologetics to me means allowing someone else to decide what I should be interested in. Sorry, not interested. Now, if the Hymn on the Soul or the Odes of Solomon become the crux of some apologetic debate, then just whistle and I'll be there.

Affirming once again that it is primarily naivete at the root of this controversy.

If only our enemies were so accommodating, we could all be as casual as you are. Unfortunately, they are not.

[Kristian]

"Commercial apologetics?"

Yes, I like the term too. It was coined by a friend of mine, a Bishop is a neighboring ward, after I'd talked through recent events at the NAMIRS. It seemed to fit the situation quite well.

[Bob Crockett]

Back to work!

Few folk are immune to the siren call to lash out. You haven't been. Nor have I.

Best wishes in your new position.

[William Schryver]

Yes, I like the term too. It was coined by a friend of mine, a Bishop is a neighboring ward, after I'd talked through recent events at the NAMIRS. It seemed to fit the situation quite well.

Without question it is a revelatory phrase as rolls off your tongue. It affirms suspicions I have long held, but had no way to really confirm: that there is, without a doubt, and at the very least, an ideological confederacy between those who have effected the MI coup, and those who routinely employ the term "mopologetics."

[Kristian]

Without question it is a revelatory phrase as rolls off your tongue. It affirms suspicions I have long held, but had no way to really confirm: that there is, without a doubt, and at the very least, an ideological confederacy between those who have effected the MI coup, and those who routinely employ the term "mopologetics."

As my good friend Lou Midgley would say, that's nonsense on stilts. Of course, you could always ask the question instead of assuming you know the answer.

[William Schryver]

Kristian:

There is a great deal to be said about our texts that is enlightening and faith-promoting but that doesn't require us to be polemical.

I could not agree more fully. But the fact that "a great deal" can be said without polemics does not compel the conclusion that: 1) polemics are, per se, bad; nor that 2) there is no place for polemics in our discourse, apologetic or otherwise.

[awyatt]

No acerbic acrostics, no cheap shots, no chuckle jokes, no insinuations about character. I tried my best to take the book seriously despite its serious shortcomings. Restraint, diplomacy and charity were as important to me as rigor and accuracy.

Like pointing out the book was "self published" and has a large number of typographical errors (neither of which has anything to do with arguments made in the book)? Like making sure that the LDS audience knew the author had been addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs and was excommunicated? Like pointing out that at least some Evangelicals have problems with the book and spending some ink reviewing the reviewers? Like pointing out that McCraney's recounted experiences are "largely unverifiable?" Like quoting online sources and websites, which several left at MI believe is not evidence of academic rigor?

I think you did a good job in the review, but others might find problems with your approach in several areas, just as you find problems with the approaches that some others have taken.

Unfortunately, the editor changed my original title despite my protestation, so it is forever saddled with a title that clashes heavily with its content.

And, yet, the title came directly from wording you used in the review: "Because Latter-day Saints believe that the motivation behind behavior matters (see Moroni 7:6–10; Matthew 6:1–6), this flawed understanding can result in stress, depression, and resignation for some or pride and hypocrisy for others. For McCraney, such an approach resulted in all of the above, ultimately leaving him spiritually stillborn."

Does calling a person "spiritually stillborn" count as a cheap shot or an insinuation about character?

An excellent paper indeed, Blair.

And one that would never have been published under the new direction at MI. Only time will tell if any similar apologetic pieces ever get published again at MI.

(Side note: Mutual admiration is to be expected. Seth was quoted several times in Blair's review. One would expect that would lend, in Seth's estimation, to a feeling that it is excellent.)

[Scott Lloyd]

As my good friend Lou Midgley would say, that's nonsense on stilts. Of course, you could always ask the question instead of assuming you know the answer.

OK, I'll be the one to ask the question, Kristian. This is the first time I've encountered the phrase "commercial apologetics." What do you mean to imply by it?

[William Schryver]

As my good friend Lou Midgley would say, that's nonsense on stilts. Of course, you could always ask the question instead of assuming you know the answer.

Well, Lou is my good friend, too, and I'm confident he would not consider my observation to be "nonsense on stilts." In fact, if our long conversation from this past weekend is any indication, you clearly do not know the mind of your "good friend" Lou.

And try as you might to divert attention from the obvious conclusion, it remains obvious. And tragic. The primary apologetic publishing apparatus of the Church has been co-opted by those who will now open its doors to the publication of ideas that, only twenty years ago, would have been deemed too radical for Sunstone. Of course, I remain confident that this enterprise will not develop to fruition. Even so, I am stunned to see that it has advanced this far.

[awyatt]

OK, I'll be the one to ask the question, Kristian. This is the first time I've encountered the phrase "commercial apologetics." What do you mean to imply by it?

And, is it possible to do "non-commercial apologetics?" (Or, perhaps "non-profit apologetics." Wait; wouldn't that be what FAIR does since they are a 501c-3?) Or, perhaps the antithesis of "commercial apologetics" is "academic apologetics," which would betray a latent disdain for those things widely accepted by the public?

It is curious.

-Allen

Edited February 12, 2013 by awyatt

[Scott Lloyd]

Folks, maybe we could get Kristian's take on "commercial apologetics," as he was the one who used the term.

[morgan.deane]

I heard recently that Jerry just acquired a great new title on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, written by two of his good friends in the Church History department. I'm hopeful that it will appear this year, or possibly early 2014. And Bill, if you have a Classic FARMS title that you're eager to write, or have written, please do send it along. I can only imagine that we'd be very interested.

You see, it not so much that we don't want to publish classic FARMS titles, it's just that people don't write them anymore!

I hesitate to jump in on what looks to be a very heated and long discussion. I have very limited experience with the politics at display here, and don't want to engender any more negative feelings. But I have to take issue with the bold portion above. I have a manuscript on warfare in the BoM that could easily be described as a classic FARMS piece. Based on trying to publish that manuscript and earlier experiences I got the impresion that the people at the Maxwell Institute weren't interested in my research; which I thought was odd at the time since it was inspired by material they had produced. So I feel this is somewhat of a self fulfilling statement. You claim you don't publish classic FARMS research because nobody writes them, but people like me don't submit them because you don't seem to want them.

I believe I have valuable things to say to a wide audience about the BoM (the early reviews say the same thing), and I'm happy with the publisher that is accepting my work. But I'm also sad it couldn't be at the place that inspired me in the first place. But as Blair said, I do have to get back to work as well.

Edited February 12, 2013 by morgan.deane

[William Schryver]

OK, I'll be the one to ask the question, Kristian. This is the first time I've encountered the phrase "commercial apologetics." What do you mean to imply by it?

Make no mistake, Scott -- whoever coined this phrase did so in a stroke of brilliance. In two words, they are thus enabled to reduce their own polemical posture to a mere two word utterance. Its utility is immense. It is an entire propaganda paper reduced to a mere 21 letters. No wonder Kristian is so fond of it. (Although it is ironic how he only dislikes polemical weapons used to support arguments with which he disagrees!)

In any case, I look forward to any definition of the phrase that Kristian may offer. It will be interesting to see if he is able to differentiate its meaning to any degree from its evil twin: "mopologetics."

[Bill Hamblin]

Not true actually. Gratefully there have been several generous and highly valued donors who are actually interested in the Syriac projects and in METI for their own sake. In fact, the last major donation to FARMS was given after a trip to the Vatican and Herculaneum. These are complementary not competing activities.

The problem here is not that you can raise some money; it's that you can't raise enough. Your salary, benefits, travel, office overhead, etc. certainly costs the university over $100,000 a year. Unless that much money is raised specifically for Syriac projects, you are parasitic on the Institute. It's quite simple.