My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[why me]

For insight into Gerald Bradford's position, I strongly recommend reading this. Many questions are answered.

But many questions are raised.

http://mimobile.byu....19&num=1&id=640

Bernard

Unless Bradford is willing to incorporate a critic intepretation of mormonism that incorporates its history, doctrines, skeletons and cultural roots the direction will be a failure. An academic journal must open its pages to direct challenges and in this case that Joseph Smith was a fraud who invented his own religion founded in the Americanisms of his time. Not to mention a critic interpretation of polyandry, polygamy, first visions, book of abraham etc. All done within academic research and made available in the pages of the journal for all to read on campus and in the greater academic community. If, not, the journal will be a called a whitewash by the critics.

And if they do allow lds rebuttals, the journal will be engaging in some form of apologetics.

Edited June 23, 2012 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Unless Bradford is willing to incorporate a critic intepretation of mormonism that incorporates its history, doctrines, skeletons and cultural roots the direction will be a failure. An academic journal must open its pages to direct challenges and in this case that Joseph Smith was a fraud who invented his own religion founded in the Americanisms of his time. Not to mention a critic interpretation of polyandry, polygamy, first visions, book of abraham etc. All done within academic research and made available in the pages of the journal for all to read on campus and in the greater academic community. If, not, the journal will be a called a whitewash by the critics.

That is exactly the wrong direction and is not scholarly in any degree. The position of scholarly research is just that, research. There is no agenda, there is not preconceived position of right or wrong, pro or con. A historian does not begin by saying Joseph was a liar (this is the problem with Brodie's work). A historian strives for as much objectivity as possible. Neutrality is the hallmark of good research.

I think what you might have been trying to say is that an environment of openness, the ability to ask any question is needed. I am not sure that a church sponsored institution is the ideal place for such an organization; maybe, but it would be very difficult when it comes to its own religion. Regardless, Bradford does not appear to be seeking this type of organization, but rather one that imitates a number of other groups already doing what he would like to do. The question for me is "why imitate what is already being done by so many others?"

[why me]

That is exactly the wrong direction and is not scholarly in any degree. The position of scholarly research is just that, research. There is no agenda, there is not preconceived position of right or wrong, pro or con. A historian does not begin by saying Joseph was a liar (this is the problem with Brodie's work). A historian strives for as much objectivity as possible. Neutrality is the hallmark of good research.

This is not exactly true. An argumentative article makes a claim and supports it with research and expert testimony. It offers insights and new interpretations on the subject. It takes a certain position and offers evidence. Many academic texts are argumentative and in the university system such essays by students are more or less required. Likewise also for academic publications.

But it is true. Some articles can take a neutral position and not claim to be argumentative but expository or analytical.

If an historian takes the position that Joseph was a liar or a fraudster, he must have evidence to support such an proposition. But he or she can certainly make such a claim.

Edited June 23, 2012 by why me

[Kevin Christensen]

I was making a rhetorical point by referencing Decker. But I don't see how you can fail to see the ad hominemism in the Review. I don't know how many Review articles I have read that pretty much ignore the author's substance, and direct their guns toward the author himself or herself.

Without specifics, how can anyone know? I've read, and often re-read every single issue and every article. And over 250 authors have published in the Review. Once you have come up with some specific examples of ad hominem, then if you have any intellectual honesty, the next step is to explore how typicial such things are. Once you've provided something specific from one author, demonstrate that it fairly represents what an unbiased investigator can expect to find in randomly exploring any of the other 250 authors and the multitude of essays/ If you cannot do that, you have no moral or intellectual grounds for repeating the charge. Let me repeat that, if you cannot demonstrate by direct evidence that ad hominem characterizes the majority of the articles in the Review over 23 years and over 250 authors, you have no moral or intellectual grounds for repeating the charge. What you are doing is, in fact, well described in Rene Girard's work on the scapegoat. "All mythical and biblical dramas, including the Passion represent the same type of collective violence against a single victim. Myths see the victim as guilty: Oedipus has really killed his father and married his mother. The BIble and the Gospels see these same victims as innocent, unjustly murdered by deluded lynchers and persecutors." (Girard, I see Satan Fall Like Lighting, 1.)

Dehlin has convinced Peggy Fletcher Strack at the Tribune, for example, on the basis of no specifics, that personal ad homimem is all we do in the Review. Her Tribune article repeats his charge without bothering to provide any evidience. Dehlin's letter to his GA friend and to Jerry Bradford included three insulting testimonials attacking Dan Peterson, but none of his testimonials provided any specific evidence whatsoever. For Dehlin, the accusation is enough to establish guilt and his protests that he is sincere in his beliefs justifies his lack of honest introspection and does away with the need to provide direct evidence.

In the introduction to I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, James Williams observes:

The concern for victims has become such an absolute value that not only do those Nietszche influenced not attack it, but it has become the unspoken dogma of 'political correctness' and 'victimism.' Political correctness surrounds most of our public institutions including above all colleges and universities, with an aura that prohibits using any word or allowing any discussion that might tend to offend some minority group or potential victim. It tends to stifle public discussion and debate of ideas an issues. Victimism uses the ideology of concern for victims to gain political or economic or spiritual advantage or justifying one's behavior.

That is exactly what has happened here. Girard has demonstrated that the life of Jesus in particular exposed the scapegoat mechanism by raising the possibility that the victim might be innocent. He shows that a single phrase, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," casts an incredibly long shadow in human behavior. With concern for victims becoming so important, how does one then select a scapegoat? The trick, Girard shows, is to first accuse the modern victim of being a perpetrator. Then the old scapegoating mechanism can function again under the simple pretext of defending the innocent. Once someone like Dehlin characterizes Daniel Peterson as a perpetrator, and himself as defending innocent victims, he can cast the first stone, and others can imitate that.

Now as to specific evidence in the Review, let me help. The most personal article I can recall was Davis Bitton's response to Grant Palmer. Bitton was clearly agitated. But the gist of the article is Bitton pointing out over and over and over how Palmer had basically ignored important scholarship while claiming to represent an insider consensus. Bitton was in fact a long standing insider with many important publications. Palmer, not a primarily a director of institutes as his handlers claimed, but a former seminary teacher, and then a counselor at a jail. For the record, I had published more than Palmer, and I would never put myself forward as an insider, nor as representing a consensus of anyone but myself.

Or Midgley in the same issue. Midgley provided some intellectual history relevant to the existence of the book, and provided a long and detailed analysis of the Golden Pot, Palmer's one original attempt at substance. Characterizing Midgley's essay as nothing but ad hominem is inaccurate.

Or even the famous, "Korihor's back, and this time he has a printing press." This was not the only review of the volume in question, but it was the only review that Robinson provided. Other reviews of the same book, and of other essays in that book went into far more academic detail. That line was not typical, but it was actually, quite apt. And Robinson's only other FARMS publication, on the actual meaning of The Great and Abominable Church, was in fact, a demonstration of the innocence of the Catholic Church, a means of promoting tolerance and understanding between the LDS and other faith traditions.

And I'm not just talking about Hamblin's infamous "Metcalfe is Butthead" incident. It's things like dismissing an author as anti-LDS or apostate, or questioning the author's background or credentials, or implying an ulterior motive, or questioning the author's integrity or honesty. You seriously have never seen that in the pages of the Review?

Ah, the incident of the censored joke, which actually had a point. The whole thing reminds me most of Michael Keaton doing his pythonesque take on Dogberry in Branagh's lovely Much Ado About Nothing.

When an author like Palmer raises the issue of credentials in the title of his book, it is a valid issue. And the vast bulk of the reponse to Palmer dealt with his scholarship, not his personality. If a reviewer like Todd Compton, for instance, had issues with someone like John W. Welch or Hugh Nibley, he was free to point that out. I notice that Compton did not question Nibley's background or Welch's credentials. I'm saying that by far, the bulk of the reviews, the typical review, the typical reviewer of the typical issue, dealt with the issues. If the Hedges review of Vogel brought up the question of Vogel's credentials, they did so in light of his treatment of evidence. And Larry Morris later responded to that issue in defense of amateur contributions like Vogel's, in specific response to the Hedges, while providing an even better exploration of Vogel's treatment of evidence. My point is that with 250 plus authors, and a wide range of perspectives, that any general characterization of the Review should not exagerate the exceptions, should account for the diversity in the contributors, and not assume that a few moments from a few personalities fairly represents all. I don't think it fair or just or perceptive or honest to characterize the whole of the review for a few mistakes. If you want to discuss them, fine. But be specific, give evidence, and don't use exceptions as the tar to brush everything with. Be accurate, specific, and fair in generalizations. Don't behave like a lynch mob, throwing the same stones that everyone else is throwing in the same direction and at the same targets on the untested assumption that those throwing the stones must have good reasons for doing so.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 23, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Anijen]

Daniel C. Peterson= Galileo

Bradford = Simplico

[Teancum]

They would simply turn their unrestrained savagery on the Church the restored gospel.

Unrestrained savagery? Really? Isn't that as much as a one dimensional charecterization as you think the critics paint the alleged shoddy scholarship and ad hominem of LDS apologetics with?

There always has to be defense of the faith, whether one chooses to call it apologetics or something else, such as advocacy. Otherwise, we're back to the conditoin of "uncontested slam dunks" that Elder Maxwell decried.

Well I agree that there should be a response to and a defense of criticisms of the LDS Church. Faithful believers have a right to do so of course. The question is what type of defense will/should it be and is it a good defense?

[wenglund]

Well I agree that there should be a response to and a defense of criticisms of the LDS Church. Faithful believers have a right to do so of course. The question is what type of defense will/should it be and is it a good defense?

The question also is who gets to determine which course is right and which defenses are good or not? The defenders, themselves, or the critics? As a long-time defender, I have serious doubts about whether the critics in general have a correct grasp of the restored gospel being defended, let alone what is a good defense or attack.

Even still, it seems that some critics have been persuasive with some once defenders and admisinstrators. But, I think that says more about the once defenders and administrators than it does the critics. At least this is how I see it. To each there own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[alter idem]

The question is what do we now know that we didn't know before?

Aristoltle Smith: "The liberals have won. There has been a ongoing fight between more liberal Mormons who populate the bloggernacle vs. the more conservative Mormons who populate discussion boards and FARMS/NAMIRS for the heart and soul of Internet Mormons. DCP's firing is a clear indication that the former group has won, and my guess is they have won decisively. Someone sympathetic to their cause will be appointed to helm NAMIRS and edit the Mormon Studies Review (formerly known as FARMS Review of Books). The change in journal name clearly signals the change in direction. NAMIRS will become a clearinghouse for Mormon Studies and will very quickly jettison the old style FARMS Mopologetics. This group will be more politically correct and academically respectable and I predict their Mormon Studies Review will be seen as academically respectable within the next five years, at least among those who care about Mormon Studies, which is something the new NAMIRS crew is sure to wildly overestimate."

Think about it.

If you get stumped and need a little help in understanding the implications of what has happened over the course of the past week, just wander over to the apostate message board and read what they have said and will yet be saying about it. I guarantee you, they understood perfectly well what the stakes were. And they know precisely what's been won.

Now do you see it, my friends? Now?

It seems to be something which happens over time with many organizations which start out 'conservative'. Once Conservative but now left-wing foundations such as the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Chritable Trusts are examples of this phenomenon. All groups which have devolved over time, moving away from the vision of those who founded them and in these instances, working for the opposite of their creators' intentions.

This same phenomenon seems to be happening with Farms as it has been taken over by the University. What's disconcerting about it is that we would not expect this to happen given the conservative nature of Church hierarchy. BYU is NOT the church though, and that must be part of the explanation for why this is happening.

For an organization to remain conservative it must fight hard to maintain it's principles, otherwise it is slowly devolves with pressure to become more liberal and politically correct. From Bill Hamblin's blog posts, it seems the seeds were sown for it's demise in 1998 when the University took over FARMS.

[ERayR]

For insight into Gerald Bradford's position, I strongly recommend reading this. Many questions are answered.

But many questions are raised.

http://mimobile.byu....19&num=1&id=640

Bernard

I really don't care about Dr. Bradford's position. It may well be the direction to go (I don't think so). What bothers me is the method used to go there. By doing what he did he attacked Dr. Peterson and his staff in a manner designed(intentionally or not) to harm their careers. It was designed to marginalize their future effectiveness, especially in apologetic s. As I have stated many times there are commonly accepted ways to handle these things that do not harm the recipients careers and reputations and it is not done publicly with leaks. Whether or not the new direction is good, whether or not it was amicable it should have been honorable and it wasn't.

[John Ping Pong]

I really don't care about Dr. Bradford's position. It may well be the direction to go (I don't think so). What bothers me is the method used to go there. By doing what he did he attacked Dr. Peterson and his staff in a manner designed(intentionally or not) to harm their careers. It was designed to marginalize their future effectiveness, especially in apologetic s. As I have stated many times there are commonly accepted ways to handle these things that do not harm the recipients careers and reputations and it is not done publicly with leaks. Whether or not the new direction is good, whether or not it was amicable it should have been honorable and it wasn't.

I agree 100%.

[David T]

By doing what he did he attacked Dr. Peterson and his staff in a manner designed(intentionally or not) to harm their careers.

How does this effect Peterson's career as a Professor and Scholar of Islamic studies?

[ERayR]

How does this effect Peterson's career as a Professor and Scholar of Islamic studies?

For future endeavor's he has the "doesn't play well with others" "lack of respect for authority" stigmas. For a person of Dr. Peterson's accomplishments and stature not so much but lessor individuals it can be quite damaging.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Interesting topic. Don't know Dr. Peterson personally but I have seen many people that have been touched by him. This is a very sad story.

[jwhitlock]

Unrestrained savagery? Really? Isn't that as much as a one dimensional charecterization as you think the critics paint the alleged shoddy scholarship and ad hominem of LDS apologetics with?

Ever been to an anti-Mormon meeting where they got things roused up to a fever pitch about "them Mormons"?

I have. I think Scott is spot on.

[William Schryver]

It seems to be something which happens over time with many organizations which start out 'conservative'. Once Conservative but now left-wing foundations such as the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Chritable Trusts are examples of this phenomenon. All groups which have devolved over time, moving away from the vision of those who founded them and in these instances, working for the opposite of their creators' intentions.

This same phenomenon seems to be happening with Farms as it has been taken over by the University. What's disconcerting about it is that we would not expect this to happen given the conservative nature of Church hierarchy. BYU is NOT the church though, and that must be part of the explanation for why this is happening.

For an organization to remain conservative it must fight hard to maintain it's principles, otherwise it is slowly devolves with pressure to become more liberal and politically correct. From Bill Hamblin's blog posts, it seems the seeds were sown for it's demise in 1998 when the University took over FARMS.

I've been in a position in the last few years to observe, to a considerable extent, the ways and means by which this pressure is brought to bear. I believe it has been able to occur almost entirely beneath the radar of the highest levels of Church leadership. I hope the excruciatingly public nature of this final act in the dissolution of the FARMS mission will at least serve to alert the Brethren to the fact that there is a war for the soul of LDS intellectual thought that is being waged in ways it has never been waged before, and with factions formed and organized to a degree that they are able to mold, manipulate, and sway public opinion. And now, it seems, they have proven capable of dictating the direction and agenda of the most respected scholarly publishing brand in the Church.

Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver

[rameumptom]

I have no problem with BYU having a non-apologetic journal. I do have a problem with BYU absorbing FARMS, and then trying to make it something it never was. There's nothing keeping MI from developing another journal solely for what Bradford wants. FARMS was created, because there were lots of LDS critics, who were writing bad things about the Church, and no scholarship to defend it. If we say nothing, we basically are saying we have no defense. That is why FARMS began. Such defense still needs to be done. We may want to adapt/adjust some tactics, but the reality is, even non-LDS scholars have noted that FARMS scholarship has been much better than that offered by others (in most situations).

Gerald Smith

Yes. Plenty, and I've read and enjoyed them and have published a couple of my own. But, BYU obviously does not want to support apologetics and the tone that it brings to a university-sponsored publication. Call it ranting, or call it something less descriptive, that is what seems to me to be going on.

Frankly, I'm surprised that it has gone on this long.

And, let me point out that I have been a supporter; last year I was at the Platinum level, I believe, if I remember the dollar levels. This year I won't contribute because I see no need for another banal journal that publishes articles maybe 10 people will read, and because I supported Dr. Peterson's work.

But really now, I hope that you can see it BYU's way and urge you not to demonize poor Bro. Bradford. I wouldn't have done it by email but I can assure you that lots of folks avoid difficult confrontation by a resort to email. And I certainly wouldn't have responded by email the way it was done; the remedy was worse than the injury, but again, it is common to say things in email to put one's position "on the record." Goodness knows, I've said things in emails I'd like to retrieve.

But, I don't see it as a despicable thing that it was done when Dr. Peterson was thousands of miles away. I have employees who work for me on a daily basis who are thousands of miles away; there is no impediment to communication. The two obviously weren't talking to each other, and it appears from the exchange that there was understandable denial going on on both parts.

But, give BYU and its administration the benefit of the doubt here. As much as I admired and supported Dr. Peterson, my love for BYU is much greater. Apologetics is a very controversial area. Dr. Peterson was and is a lightning rod, with sharks swimming beneath him. BYU didn't want that any more. Or so it appears.

[Pahoran]

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

Which is entirely irrelevant, since the MI has never published "mean-spirited and vindictive apologetic rants."

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.

Neither the Church nor the Maxwell Institute has ever published anything by any of those authors that any reasonable person would regard as "mean-spirited personal attacks."

I realise that anti-Mormons regard almost every MI-published article as such, but I was talking about reasonable people.

OTOH, someone whose goal was to harm the Church would be positively delighted to see its defenders disarmed and/or silenced. Hence the whoops and howls of glee coming from the Sty.

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.

The Church has never at any time "sponsor[ed] a journal that publishes hate." The claim that it has is boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TomesD]

Mike Reed is out of the thread.

Skylla

Why?

[Evangeline]

This should give you a hint.

Several posts are hidden. There is no need for viciousness, mockery, or flaming, especially when directed toward a name. There are other boards who like that. We don't. The good news is that only posts have been removed not posters.

[TomesD]

And, as R. C. Sproul notably said (quoting 1 Peter 3:15):

"The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world."

Ben McGuire

Excellent quote!

[CASteinman]

Hopefully BYU will keep it up on the internet, but I predict that that support will vanish.

I guess I need to find some time to go download the website. Before its all gone.

[mfbukowski]

I guess I need to find some time to go download the website. Before its all gone.

I think you are right.

It's only been 3 days and we are back to "My Summer Vacation" I guess.

http://mormonscriptu...eland-interior/

Looks to me that the "movement" has been co-opted.

Oh well, dust off our hands, the funeral is over, the ashes scattered, and it's back to normal life, supposedly.

I don't think so.

I still want to know how anti-Mormons took over an institute named after Neal Maxwell.

Edited June 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

I think you are right.

It's only been 3 days and we are back to "My Summer Vacation" I guess.

http://mormonscriptu...eland-interior/

Looks to me that the "movement" has been co-opted.

Oh well, dust off our hands, the funeral is over, the ashes scattered, and it's back to normal life, supposedly.

I don't think so.

I still want to know how anti-Mormons took over an institute named after Neal Maxwell.

Is it a possibility that the church wants all of the apologetics to stop and just tell it like it is. Why are we now hearing so much about the JS Papers? There is alot there, is anyone apologising for any of it? Maybe they are aware that some things in the church were man made and they want to get on with the business of making this church entirely Christ centered. I think many in the 15 might have the same view that you think some anti's have. The truth exposed out in the light where it's able to free some of the so called antis, the antis that can't leave the church alone. The majority of antis are former faithful LDS to nth degree. It's the only way it's going to work eventually. If we have truth why do we need to apologise for it?

[Calm]

Is it a possibility that the church wants all of the apologetics to stop and just tell it like it is.

I would think that everyone who has published for FARMS/MI believed they are telling it "like it is".

FAIR people certainly believe we are telling it "like it is".

[CASteinman]

Is it a possibility that the church wants all of the apologetics to stop and just tell it like it is?

These are the same things.