My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[BCSpace]

Question: How did Bradford come to head the MI and who was his predecessor?

Okay, answered my own question: Andrew C. Skinner. It appears that BYU makes these appointments. I was wondering if Bradford had been appointed/nominated by those who no longer like him.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=28&num=2&id=566

[The Nehor]

No, I'm serious here. Is Daniel Peterson a recognized figure in the Church or in the leadership of BYU academics.

In a small way yes to both. More in the latter then the former I think.

Is this Maxwell Institute a recognized academic institution outside of BYU and Utah.

Yes, but only in specific circles it is involved in.

I am being serious, what is the significance here and to the future of the Church?

Not much significance.

I was just assuming, based on the emotions of this thread, that this was some huge happening within the Church.

No, but it is important to many here because they have an interest in the subject.

Will it be something we read in the Ensign or in the press somewhere?

The former almost certainly not. In the latter less unlikely but still unlikely. It is rare that academic infighting makes the papers. It's a shame. If more people knew how childishly petty so much of academia is they'd be less impressed with it.

Basically FARMS was a small independent organization that published on a topic of interest to its members. The Church and FARMS agreed to bring it under BYU's leadership. The old guard were just booted in what amounts to a palace coup. It is akin to a small business being brought down from within and all the people who built the company being fired or relegated to lesser positions because someone else imagines they can do a better job or have a new idea. I'm of the opinion that if they truly did they should form their own organization but that would require effort and time so why not grab the one already there.

The anger you see is not due to the enormity of what happened but because those of us who are angry have enjoyed the work that has been created and don't want to see it change. It would be like watching an author you really like get sidelined and his series stolen because someone else thought they had a better direction or "vision" for the story. Most of the world won't care but fans of the work will be incensed and most will stop buying the books.

As you can probably tell I support one side more then the other.

[why me]

No, John doesn't do apologetics. His group is mainly a support group for disaffected LDS,

What kind of support is he giving to this group? He is helping them to remain in the church through is MormonStories podcasts or is he helping them to leave? If he is a support figure for disaffected LDS, he is then no different from exmormon boards that also claim to be giving support to that particular group.

This is off-topic.

[The Nehor]

The other problem outside of how Dan was dismissed is the mole who leaked the emails. I think that this in itself constitutes a breach in trust that members should have in such a publication. There is obviously someone in that organization that wanted to harm Dan as much as possible. And this should cause someone to be indignant. I don't know where pragmatism comes in in this kind of situation.

I've been in academic circles too much to think this is over and done with. The pragmatic part of me wants to see how this will shake out before I write the Maxwell Institute off as a ruined (not failed) endeavor. I don't know what is going on. It would be very easy for those in charge at BYU to reverse this. If a lot of the most prominent members leave or refuse to continue working there BYU may bring in new leadership.

[Libs]

What kind of support is he giving to this group? He is helping them to remain in the church through is MormonStories podcasts or is he helping them to leave? If he is a support figure for disaffected LDS, he is then no different from exmormon boards that also claim to be giving support to that particular group.

I haven't visited many ex-Mormon boards, so I'm not sure what they do. I have, however, visited many "anti-Mormon" boards and there is a big difference between what they do, and what John Dehlin does. John doesn't try to steer anyone in any particular direction. He is really very open to listening to all sides of a question, IMO. Not to say he doesn't have his own opinions and sometimes shares them, but he is a good listener and tries to be fair to everyone. I have never, ever heard John tell anyone they should leave the church (or stay). He supports people wherever they are, at the moment..

[selek1]

Libs, there are several other threads open regarding Dehlin and his cult of personality.

If you wish to discuss him, please do so there.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, John doesn't do apologetics. His group is mainly a support group for disaffected LDS, but he does participate in apologetics, in a round about way, in that he has interviewed many apologists and brings those kinds of subjects to the discussion table.

So he's a journalist of sorts. That's not apologetics.

[Libs]

Libs, there are several other threads open regarding Dehlin and his cult of personality.

If you wish to discuss him, please do so there.

Okay, no problem.

[Avatar4321]

Forgive my ignorance. But I don't really see how apologetics is not scholarly when it's done right. It seems like there is some assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.

I have nothing but praise for apologetics and the scholarship of the Church. Studying them helped me develop my testimony.

[Scott Lloyd]

Forgive my ignorance. But I don't really see how apologetics is not scholarly when it's done right. It seems like there is some assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.

I have nothing but praise for apologetics and the scholarship of the Church. Studying them helped me develop my testimony.

Apologetics is simply defense. It can be done well or poorly. Apologetics is a value-neutral term.

When anti-Mormons disparage Mormon apologists as a group, it's only a reflection of their own hatred for Mormonism.

[TAO]

Changed my mind.

Edited June 22, 2012 by TAO

[selek1]

When anti-Mormons disparage Mormon apologists as a group, it's only a reflection of their own hatred for Mormonism.

Indeed- those who insist that apologetics are "bad for the Church" are almost invariably those who prefer their victims passive and unresisting.

It is not "apologetics" per se, that troubles them- it is the fact that some of us are willing to stand up and contradict them.

Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

Thank you for finally admitting which team you really support.

You ignored the word "perceived."

[Analytics]

I said, “I happen to agree with the Maxwell Institute on this question; mean-spirited and vindictive apologetic rants are bad for the Church.”

To this, Pahoran responded:

Here's the thing: if you really believed that, you'd be in favour of them.

If my goals were for the Church to be harmed, I would be utterly dismayed by this change. When the Church publishes the mean-spirited personal attacks like the ones of Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson, Russell McGregor, it does more harm to itself than any critic could possibly do.

But just because I am against mean-spirited personal attacks doesn’t mean I’m against the Church itself.

But that still wouldn't mean you'd be in favour of anything published in the Review, though.

One can be in favor of civility without agreeing with various points that are civilly made.

But I love the way you so slyly try to wrap yourself in the MI flag. As everyone here knows, you are not agreeing with the MI when you make that statement; you are agreeing with something you choose to impute to the MI as if that were its position.

Allow me to clarify my position. The Mission Statement of the Maxwell Institute used to be this:

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to:

•Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship

•Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world

•Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts

•Provide an anchor of faith in a sea of LDS Studies

Now its Mission Statement is this:

By furthering religious scholarship through

the study of scripture and other texts,

Brigham Young University's

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

seeks to deepen understanding and nurture

discipleship among Latter-day Saints

while promoting mutual respect and goodwill

among people of all faiths.

Presumably, the Institute made this change because it thought doing so would be beneficial to the Church (Do you disagree? Do you think they thought this change would harm the Church?). I think this is a good change for the Church; it is unbecoming of the Church to provide a forum for mean-spirited rants.

I am happy with this change. There are now fewer things for me to criticize. I’m accepting the goodwill the church is promoting. The Church is a better organization for not sponsoring a journal that publishes hate.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Analytics

[Storm Rider]

I said, “I happen to agree with the Maxwell Institute on this question; mean-spirited and vindictive apologetic rants are bad for the Church.” To this, Pahoran responded: If my goals were for the Church to be harmed, I would be utterly dismayed by this change. When the Church publishes the mean-spirited personal attacks like the ones of Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson, Russell McGregor, it does more harm to itself than any critic could possibly do.

But just because I am against mean-spirited personal attacks doesn’t mean I’m against the Church itself.

One can be in favor of civility without agreeing with various points that are civilly made.

Allow me to clarify my position. The Mission Statement of the Maxwell Institute used to be this:

Now its Mission Statement is this:

Presumably, the Institute made this change because it thought doing so would be beneficial to the Church (Do you disagree? Do you think they thought this change would harm the Church?). I think this is a good change for the Church; it is unbecoming of the Church to provide a forum for mean-spirited rants.

I am happy with this change. There are now fewer things for me to criticize. I’m accepting the goodwill the church is promoting. The Church is a better organization for not sponsoring a journal that publishes hate.

I think people shudder a bit when wrapping yourself in such benevolence. Past actions and words poison the well. The Church is not the Maxwell institute; equating the two is both unwise and inappropriate.

There is a time and a place for all things. I appreciate excellent, sharp, instructive apologetics. This does not mean that I don't find a place for working with other churches/faiths/religions to ameliorate the human condition.

What is clear to me is that the vast majority of the leaders of most Christian denominations work against the LDS Church and either promote directly or tolerate substandard, ignorant, and deceitful attacks on the LDS Church's doctrine, teachings, activities, and membership. There are distinct differences between what the LDS Church teaches and what other churches teach; those points should be addressed honestly, faithfully, scholarly, and with clarity. There is no need for doing it otherwise.

We all hope that actions can be taken in a charitable manner; this present action against Dan does not appear to have been handled with any degree of such desired behavior. However, it just again proves that man is feeble and remains in great need of the Holy Spirit in all things. LDS are no different than any other people on the earth in this regard. What has been done appears final and things need to move forward for good or ill.

As for me, I dislike eating a steady diet of milk toast and I hope that MI does not turn into producing such works. It will take time to observe what really evolves there. I will stand from afar and watch and I invite others to do the same without ire or bad feelings; there is no need to burden ourselves with such.

[Calm]

I can't decide whether to call my friends and family who currently contribute, tell them what happened, and ask them to stop or not. The indignant part of me wants to but the pragmatic part wants to see what happens first.

I'd wait and see. It is early days yet. If it becomes obvious there is no hope left of compromise with the current stand, then pressure at that point may be able to push it forward. There is no point writing if writing is being ignored. Cancellation may be the only way to communicate with someone who refuses to communicate....but then the MI, a valuable and worthy institution suffers. So I think it would be best to wait, wait until something organized is needed.

Perhaps a signed petition hand delivered?

[Calm]

I've been in academic circles too much to think this is over and done with. The pragmatic part of me wants to see how this will shake out before I write the Maxwell Institute off as a ruined (not failed) endeavor. I don't know what is going on. It would be very easy for those in charge at BYU to reverse this. If a lot of the most prominent members leave or refuse to continue working there BYU may bring in new leadership.

It could perhaps split off an independent dept. that carried on the traditional view, call it something like Classic FARMS.

[why me]

I am happy with this change. There are now fewer things for me to criticize. I’m accepting the goodwill the church is promoting. The Church is a better organization for not sponsoring a journal that publishes hate.

What is hate? When a people defend their love against people who wish to destroy that love, what would you suggest to do to defend the church against such haters? I think that apologists defend what they love with passion and not with hate.

[jwhitlock]

If my goals were for the Church to be harmed, I would be utterly dismayed by this change. When the Church publishes the mean-spirited personal attacks like the ones of Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson, Russell McGregor, it does more harm to itself than any critic could possibly do.

"Mean-spirited" is a subjective term based on the perspective of of the one making accusation.

Dan, Bill, and others defend the church. They expose the enemies of the church and their baseless accusations for what they really are.

Enemies of the church then make personal attacks against apologists (like the mischaracterization you use here) to try to shut them down.

As I noted previously, when enemies of the church applaud what the MI is doing, then the MI is making a mistake.

The damage done by apologists is to critics and enemies of the church. I applaud that. I also find it interesting to note that when critics and enemies of the church can't make any cogent response to what an apologist writes, they then try to marginalize them through personal attacks - such as what you've done here.

[jwhitlock]

What is hate? When a people defend their love against people who wish to destroy that love, what would you suggest to do to defend the church against such haters? I think that apologists defend what they love with passion and not with hate.

Our enemies want us to believe that Dan is just a hate-filled, mean-spirited, boat anchor in the church, and that apologetics are destroying the church. They want to have free reign, without opposition, to work against the church. The dilution of the mission of the MI, and the "elimination" of apologetics is something that fits right in with their goals.

That's ironic given the tone and content of what can be read on other forums that make such accusations.

I find Analytics' personal attacks and misrepresentation of apologists and their goals - characterized by his over-the top accusation of what Dan publishes as "hate" - to be offensive. I recommend his comments as a resource for anyone who wants to understand how our enemies work and how they have no qualms making such personal attacks to tear down the church and those who defend it. They're quite instructive as to what we're really up against in this whole thing.

[Somebodyz]

I can't decide whether to call my friends and family who currently contribute, tell them what happened, and ask them to stop or not. The indignant part of me wants to but the pragmatic part wants to see what happens first.

Perhaps you should let them know, about the change of direction, but not suggest what they do with their own money.

Just give them the facts as you know them.

If I'd given money I'd want to know promises made have been broken (if it was given for the sort of work Will and Dan do), to how that money is being spent.

[Analytics]

Our enemies want us to believe that Dan is just a hate-filled, mean-spirited, boat anchor in the church, and that apologetics are destroying the church. They want to have free reign, without opposition, to work against the church. The dilution of the mission of the MI, and the "elimination" of apologetics is something that fits right in with their goals.

That's ironic given the tone and content of what can be read on other forums that make such accusations.

I find Analytics' personal attacks and misrepresentation of apologists and their goals - characterized by his over-the top accusation of what Dan publishes as "hate" - to be offensive. I recommend his comments as a resource for anyone who wants to understand how our enemies work and how they have no qualms making such personal attacks to tear down the church and those who defend it. They're quite instructive as to what we're really up against in this whole thing.

An interesting juxtaposition is this: when the MI targeted John Dehlin, John had GA friends who could and did nix it. When the MI targeted Dan Peterson, no GA has nor will emerge to nix it. I’ve long held that Peterson’s editorial style is unbecoming of the Church, and it appears the Church now agrees with me.

I support the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church in these decisions. That makes me an enemy? An enemy of whom?

Edited June 22, 2012 by Analytics

[bluebell]

An interesting juxtaposition is this: when the MI targeted John Dehlin, John had GA friends who could and did nix it. When the MI targeted Dan Peterson, no GA has nor will emerge to nix it. I’ve long held that Peterson’s editorial style is unbecoming of the Church, and it appears the Church now agrees with me.

I support the Maxwell Institute, BYU, and the Church in these decisions. That makes me an enemy? An enemy of whom?

We know that John specifically asked his GA friend to step in, and we know that the friend did so without even knowing what he was stepping in to stop, suggesting that the only reason he did so was because he was asked and not out of any personal desire to get involved.

Since we do not know if Dan asked anyone for the same favor, we can't honestly say that the GAs were unwilling to help him (because we don't know that).

[William Schryver]

Bob, I think you need to define "important to the church." Dan isn't the kind of guy who is going to speak at General Conference. If that's what you mean by "important", than no, Dan is not important.

However, in the world of internet Mormons, Dan is quite well-known. He has fans among members, detractors from anti-Mormons. So in the Bloggernacle, Dan is "important." He is probably one of the most visible defenders of the Church, but if you're not on the Bloggernacle very much, that's probably why you've never heard of him.

Until this kerfuffle, I had never heard of Bradford.

I am curious how the Dehlin paper fits into this. It seems to me to be overblown in importance to this issue; however, I do wonder if it was the last straw on the direction of the Review.

Who are you? What names have you posted with on other boards in the past, in order that we might have a sense of the context within which you approach these things? (I hate it when these new sock puppets spring up like mushrooms after a summer rain ...)

[William Schryver]

I've been in academic circles too much to think this is over and done with. The pragmatic part of me wants to see how this will shake out before I write the Maxwell Institute off as a ruined (not failed) endeavor.

A wise posture.

I don't know what is going on. It would be very easy for those in charge at BYU to reverse this. If a lot of the most prominent members leave or refuse to continue working there BYU may bring in new leadership.

As Spock was wont to say, there are always possibilities ...