What Has The New Farms Produced?

[Kristian]

As the new regime is completely parasitic on classic FARMS endowments and fund-raising, and Kristian's job is paid for you endowments raised to do "commercial apologetics," and fund-raising has apparently collapsed in the wake of the debacle, it is rather ironic that Kristian denigrates the "commercial apologetics" that pays for his supper.

Thanks Bill, that's exactly my point. I have often spoken about the BYUing of FARMS/NAMIRS. I see the move away from commercial apologetics as part of that process. We take our name seriously. I work at an Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the University wanted an Institute of Apologetics or an endowed chair in apologetics it would have one. Just to put all my card on the table, I think it was a very good thing that FARMS came into BYU and agree with all the decisions that have brought the organization more in line with University policies and approaches.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What is crystal clear, however, is that the new direction is strongly supported by all the anti-Mormons and apostates. That should give a reflective man pause.

It has given me some pause. And upon reflection I've concluded that "all the anti-Mormons and apostates" is something of an overstatement and a label that doesn't make much sense to me. True, there has been some cheering on a particular message board, where such support is being offered by folks who largely just like to get on your nerves and on DCP's nerves, and who will use the Institute to those ends to the extent that you continue to allow it. You're saying you aren't sure what the "new direction" is, so how do you really know that they would like it, or how would you evaluate the reasons they seem to like it? For these anonymous, few-in-number message board hobbyists who don't like you, any direction that departs from you in any way would look like an improvement from their perspective.

At any rate, this discussion is a nice example of how we're ill-served by engaging in online arguments on message boards, and how too much attention paid here can be distracting more than illuminating. I could be wrong about these reflections, but it is what it is.

[Bill Hamblin]

We're getting there, Bill. In the meantime, I hope things don't devolve into a petty contest. I recognize that feelings are raw. If you and others sincerely wish the Institute well then sit tight and see what develops. I don't have any desire to engage in competition with you, the Interpreter, or any other group or organization. If it's true that "classic FARMS" stuff will no longer be published at the Institute (which I believe isn't true depending on how one defines that term, see Nevo's post above, but grant it for the sake of argument) then such works still have a place at the Interpreter, right? Let's let a thousand flowers bloom, brother, the future looks bright. No one is standing in your way. We all have some exciting opportunities available to us, let's make the most of them and move forward. In the meantime, let's quit showboating on message boards and start putting shoulders to the wheel and whathaveyou.

I'd be perfectly willing to let MI do whatever they want if they hadn't usurped millions of dollars in donations, university funding, land, resources, personnel, etc. to fund Jerry's pet vision. The problem isn't that MI doesn't do good things. It does. The problem is that Bradford and his Junta systematically set out to dismantle classic FARMS and usurp the endowment raised for classic FARMS, and divert it to do their pet projects.

I'm not showboating. I'm perfectly serious.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[awyatt]

This whole thing has at least validated for me personally my amguished decision years ago to not pursue a career in academia when I saw silliness and pettiness like this. The corporate world is more civil and honest.

Not in my experience. ;-) Academia is simply a corporate niche with an air of superiority.

-Allen

[Kristian]

Come now, Kristian ... duplicity does not become you. You've provided a definition of "commercial apologetics" as viewed from the production side of the equation, while carefully avoiding the consumer thereof. It is the consumer of "commercial apologetics" that is really at issue here. You've considered it demeaning that the consumers of the primary product of your academic "factory" were largely non-academics. By converting the factory to a "religious studies" model you are able to transform your consumer base away from the proletariat and into the halls of academia, where you are convinced it belongs.

I direct your attention to current and future issues of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. We are as eager as ever to serve the general audience and intend to continue publishing books and periodicals that are of a general interest.

[awyatt]

Thanks Bill, that's exactly my point. I have often spoken about the BYUing of FARMS/NAMIRS. I see the move away from commercial apologetics as part of that process. We take our name seriously. I work at an Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the University wanted an Institute of Apologetics or an endowed chair in apologetics it would have one. Just to put all my card on the table, I think it was a very good thing that FARMS came into BYU and agree with all the decisions that have brought the organization more in line with University policies and approaches.

My jaw, literally, just hit the desk. This simply boggles the mind...

[The Nehor]

Not in my experience. ;-) Academia is simply a corporate niche with an air of superiority.

-Allen

In most corporations I have worked with if the petty mid-level academic fights that are a matter of course in universities happened in the corporation higherups or the board would fire the idiots as a waste of space, money, and manpower. If Bradford was head of a branch of my company and fired the main moneymakers of his group in order to produce something for which there seems little interest or market and then failed to even produce any of this material he would be out the door already and polishing up his resume.

[Bill Hamblin]

Thanks Bill, that's exactly my point. I have often spoken about the BYUing of FARMS/NAMIRS. I see the move away from commercial apologetics as part of that process. We take our name seriously. I work at an Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the University wanted an Institute of Apologetics or an endowed chair in apologetics it would have one. Just to put all my card on the table, I think it was a very good thing that FARMS came into BYU and agree with all the decisions that have brought the organization more in line with University policies and approaches.

You would. You make a living off the funding others raised for "commercial apologetics" that is just too crass for your sensitive constitution.

But you miss the point. We had an institution once, FARMS, that did a particular type of LDS scholarship on ancient scripture and apologetics. It was extraordinarily successful, raising millions of dollars in a huge endowment. Then, people end up in charge who disagree with the original goals and purpose of FARMS, and systematically dismantle it, while keeping the endowment. Yes, I'm quite sure you're happy with that. But I'm not so sure that the donors, who made donations in good faith for specific goals, are quite so happy seeing their donations diverted to other purposes which you and the Junta happen to like better that what the donor wanted.

I wonder if you would be so delighted if you had managed to raise $500,000 to study Syriac manuscripts, and then I was put in charge of MI, and decided to fire you and use your money to fund an endowed chair for someone else to do Book of Mormon studies.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

In most corporations I have worked with if the petty mid-level academic fights that are a matter of course in universities happened in the corporation higherups or the board would fire the idiots as a waste of space, money, and manpower. If Bradford was head of a branch of my company and fired the main moneymakers of his group in order to produce something for which there seems little interest or market and then failed to even produce any of this material he would be out the door already and polishing up his resume.

Indeed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I direct your attention to current and future issues of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. We are as eager as ever to serve the general audience and intend to continue publishing books and periodicals that are of a general interest.

Then as part of the general audience, I will weigh in here and say that one way I am served is when the attacks from the Church's enemies are met and rebutted in an intelligent and scholarly manner. It helps me formulate my own thoughts and views and, yes, it helps to strengthen my faith by clearing the ground of noxious weeds so that such faith can flourish.

I am not well-served by a conscious and deliberate diminution of that endeavor.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You have, whether you like it or not, accepted a position with an organization whose leadership has at least given the impression that it is opposed to apologetics, full stop.

Through my hiring process there was never any intimation that apologetics was wrong or to be avoided. There have been disagreements over styles of apologetics, various apologetic approaches, etc., but there hasn't been a word about opposition to "apologetics" as though there were only one true apologetic method. Good scholarship, honest scholarship, rigorous and diplomatic scholarship can serve apologetic functions in addition to providing solid contributions for religious studies more broadly.

Translation: We took all the infrastructure and the money you helped raise and are using it for something else. We kicked you out in a slimy way. You had to start from scratch and rebuild from the ground up. Now can't we all be friends?

The world is usually more complex than simple stories about heroes and villains. I feel bad to the extent that this is the honest story some folks have taken away from the developments of the past year. It isn't the way I understand the story, obviously, but like others who've been trying to control the narrative over the past few months I also have a vested interest in things. Primarily I'm interested in being successful in my new position and seeing good production from the Institute.

[Bill Hamblin]

I direct your attention to current and future issues of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. We are as eager as ever to serve the general audience and intend to continue publishing books and periodicals that are of a general interest.

We have no beef with the JBMS. We noted its publication on Interpreter.

But Jerry tried to usurp that endowment as well. He went to the Willes family and asked if he could change the name of the Willes Center for BOM Studies to the "Willes Center for Religious Studies." The family said no. Note that Jerry systematically set out to usurp that endowment for the study of the BOM into an endowment for Religious Studies--that is, his pet project.

[Daniel Peterson]

Rest assured Bill, that Dan's departure caused hefty amounts of havoc (as he intended) among our subscribers, donors and staff.

I intended no "havoc." That's a genuinely foul allegation to level against me.

commercial apologetics (you fund, we defend)

A very revealing (and deeply insulting) description.

.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[ERayR]

Thanks Bill, that's exactly my point. I have often spoken about the BYUing of FARMS/NAMIRS. I see the move away from commercial apologetics as part of that process. We take our name seriously. I work at an Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the University wanted an Institute of Apologetics or an endowed chair in apologetics it would have one. Just to put all my card on the table, I think it was a very good thing that FARMS came into BYU and agree with all the decisions that have brought the organization more in line with University policies and approaches.

Is that the reason FARMS was invited to join the BYU umbrella?

[Bill Hamblin]

Through my hiring process there was never any intimation that apologetics was wrong or to be avoided. There have been disagreements over styles of apologetics, various apologetic approaches, etc., but there hasn't been a word about opposition to "apologetics" as though there were only one true apologetic method. Good scholarship, honest scholarship, rigorous and diplomatic scholarship can serve apologetic functions in addition to providing solid contributions for religious studies more broadly.

You are in for quite a reality check in your new job. One thing is the use of code language. Oh, wait. You've already mastered that one.

Just so you know, Jerry does not like apologetics, period. Never has.

[awyatt]

Primarily I'm interested in being successful in my new position and seeing good production from the Institute.

I, for one, hope that both are achieved and wish you well in the endeavor.

Assuming that you are using "good" as a qualitative adjective, I fear that the MI's current definition of the term differs from mine. I know it differs significantly from what it was through the early months of 2012. There are those (such as Kristian, judging by his posts on this thread) who view apologetics as polemics (they are not the same) and believe there is no confluence between religious studies and apologetics (one is a subset of the other). It is that view, presented with an air of moral superiority, that rankles many.

Edited February 12, 2013 by awyatt

[Bill Hamblin]

Is that the reason FARMS was invited to join the BYU umbrella?

Frankly, it was about a land grab and control of donations.

[Kristian]

Bill, how, specifically, in your own words, would you say that the current administration has "dismantle[d] classic FARMS"? Are you still just talking about the Review?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Kristian

[rodheadlee]

I don't see how badgering Blair is going to help anything.

We don't know the situation- the guy has a great new job and he is doing what he needs to do. Who really cares what they publish and when?

What is going to change if they do or do not publish this year? What difference does it make in the long run to anyone? Those who got fired got fired- it was a raw deal, but now this just looks like sour grapes whatever the real emotions behind it. It is just unbecoming to be badgering Blair- he is doing the best he can under circumstances we do not understand.

I care , I was hoping to get a copy of Mormons Codex before I die. Which at the rate I'm going might be sooner rather than later.

[William Schryver]

My jaw, literally, just hit the desk. This simply boggles the mind...

Stunning, isn't it? This explains precisely why none of them are concerned at all that they are being viewed as the "champions du jour" of the anti-Mormon/apostate crowd. Why should they be concerned?

عدو عدوي هو صديقي

[Kristian]

You would. You make a living off the funding others raised for "commercial apologetics" that is just too crass for your sensitive constitution.

I wonder if you would be so delighted if you had managed to raise $500,000 to study Syriac manuscripts, and then I was put in charge of MI, and decided to fire you and use your money to fund an endowed chair for someone else to do Book of Mormon studies.

CPART projects (Dead Sea Scrolls, Herculaneum, Vatican Syriac project) have consistently been used to raise money for apologetics and general LDS scholarship. I have no complaints. In fact I have done it myself.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Kristian

[Bill Hamblin]

1- changed the mission statement

2- made all the people who don't like classic FARMS "directors"

3- marginalized, ostracized, alienated, and fired those scholars working with classic FARMS

4- diverted funding prioritizing non-classic FARMS projects

5- cancelled the Review

6- alienated donors to classic-FARMS

Need I go on?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'd be perfectly willing to let MI do whatever they want if they hadn't usurped millions of dollars in donations, university funding, land, resources, personnel, etc. to fund Jerry's pet vision. The problem isn't that MI doesn't do good things. It does. The problem is that Bradford and his Junta systematically set out to dismantle classic FARMS and usurp the endowment raised for classic FARMS, and divert it to do their pet projects.

[...] I'm perfectly serious.

I know you're serious. I just think your story isn't getting things straight. And I think there is very little I can say or do to convince you otherwise. And that's OK to me, I just have to accept it and move forward with my new job. I disagree with the story you're trying to advance about juntas and usurpations and conspiracies and underhandedness, and so forth, but arguing with you about it endlessly will do me no good. You don't take me seriously anyway, and besides that you're inexhaustible. You'll never quit and you won't be swayed. You have your story, I won't be able to take it from you. I just have to accept that. To be frank, I don't like arguing with you about it on message boards and I feel a little silly about it.

Instead, I have faith in the present direction of the Institute and hope we can show that faith by our works. (So far this message board conversation must seem meager fare, like those little plastic containers of dried up jelly you get at Denny's.) The fruit can be judged as it emerges in mason jars from our Mormony canning facility in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, I have no interest in measuring the size of jars with those of the Interpreter or any other organization. We're the Maxwell Institute, and we're going to do our best with the resources we've been blessed with.

Edited February 12, 2013 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bill Hamblin]

CPART prtojects (Dead Sea Scrolls, Herculaneum, Vatican Syriac project) have consistently been used to raise money for apologetics and general LDS scholarship. I have no complaints. In fact I have done it myself.

What you're saying is some of these donations went to the general endowment.

I am extraordinarily dubious that CPART project ever raised more money than they cost.

[The Nehor]

The world is usually more complex than simple stories about heroes and villains.

I agree completely.

It has been my experience though that those who defend themselves and others with arguments of that sort are usually on shakey moral ground if that is the best argument they can come up with. The argument usually surfaces most often in shady financial dealings, criminal trials, from the mouths of adulterers, and defenses of indefensible actions. Of course those who did those things are not wholly evil and irredeemable.

I contributed in a meager way to your organization amd encouraged others to contribute, some of whose contributions were not so meager. They have stopped now and they and I feel betrayed. The most vindictive part of me hopes the whole thing crashes and burns to the ground and that the earth is salted in its wake. I try to control that part of myself. I wish the Interpreter the best in any case and do not expect that BYU will be able to bring it under their aegis as they did FARMS. That bridge is burnt at least.