My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[David T]

I think its ironic that you would advance an argument for more diversity and less dogmatism as reasons for eliminating FARMS distinctive voice and making it more like BYU Studies, the Church History Department, and hundreds of academic journals elsewhere.

IMHO, suppressing the more rambunctious or combative elements on one's own side of a dialogue or discussion is a form of preemptive surrender. You gain respect, you lose the arguments. That which is not defended will be assumed to be indefensible.

I'm fine with such a group having an independent, published voice. There are plenty of independent academic journals I support. I think FAIR, as an unaffiliated entity, is perfectly fine, and has its place.

I'm not comfortable with such distinctive voices being financed and promulgated (and controlled) by a wing of an institution that has the imprimatur of the Church. Just as silly, to me, as it would to have Dialogue or Sunstone be financed and promulgated by an institution with the imprimatur of the Church.

BYU/MI has powerful resources available to make their scholastic publications and offerings stand out without needing to be divisively dogmatic.

Edited June 21, 2012 by David T

[mapman]

This is something that should rise to the level of their consideration. In fact, I feel confident that this issue is being discussed in this morning's weekly meeting, and I hope to hear, sooner or later, that this horrendous decision has been reversed, and that those who are attempting to silence LDS apologetics will be thwarted in their undertaking, and finally recognized for who and what they really are.

Could you clarify? Who are you accusing of being wolves in sheep's clothing? It sounds to me like you are suggesting that general authorities are.

Edited June 21, 2012 by mapman

[stemelbow]

I am appalled at how this all came out and how this has been handled. I appreciate what has been said here by both Bill and Dan. I find many of their critics disgusting and it's a shame this came out as it did for that reason alone.

Change, or the thought of it, can be intriguing, but the way this all went down I think in this instance faith in this notion of change is spoiled. I can't say I"m all that intrigued.

[why me]

Now, my personal view is that there is no room for another scholarly journal at BYU of a Mormon Studies variety, given BYU Studies' role, and that FARMS Review will fade away. FAIR will become the outlet for people like you and maybe me to vent hyperbole. But the body of work that is FARMS Review is still there for all to have and read. Hopefully BYU will keep it up on the internet, but I predict that that support will vanish.

I think that you are right and wrong in your post. I do see Farms Review fading away. There is no way that a journal can survive by writing a sanitized version of mormonism at byu. It would become a laughing stock. And there is no way that the Review can allow critics to critique mormon history or doctrine in its pages. That leaves very little room for creativity.

However, I do take issue with you usage of the word 'vent'. Apologetics is not about venting. It is about passion. Passion to defend something that one loves against those that hate what is loved. And yes, since apologetics is about passion, the blood can get hot. But such is love.

[William Schryver]

Could you clarify? Who are you accusing of being wolves in sheep's clothing? It sounds to me like you are suggesting that general authorities are.

From what I have been able to ascertain (and I have good reason to believe my information is correct) Jerry's decision did not originate with nor was it endorsed any higher up the ladder than the rung upon which he himself is precariously perched. It was an impulsive action on his part; but one that he hopes those higher up will be reluctant to reverse. We shall yet see if his calculations were correct in that respect ...

[why me]

It was an impulsive action on his part; but one that he hopes those higher up will be reluctant to reverse.

The board of the Farms Review can certainly reverse an impulsive decision. I think that the waves are now hitting the shores of the Farms Review. Something will happen.

[mapman]

From what I have been able to ascertain (and I have good reason to believe my information is correct) Jerry's decision did not originate with nor was it endorsed any higher up the ladder than the rung upon which he himself is precariously perched. It was an impulsive action on his part; but one that he hopes those higher up will be reluctant to reverse. We shall yet see if his calculations were correct in that respect ...

Thank you for clarifying.

I have been trying to understand what is going on with this situation, but it has been difficult as everyone seems to have strong feelings about the matter. I hope that Bro. Peterson will be successful in what he decides to do and that the Maxwell Institute will continue to do good for the Church and BYU.

Edited June 21, 2012 by mapman

[William Schryver]

This kind of hyperbole is probably part of the reason the hammer has come down.

Yes, I've already seen it said that this is all my fault.

"Silence?" Really now.

Yes, "silence".

I can see BYU's point. It isn't going to sponsor a publication where all sorts of non-academic hacks (yours truly, included) can publish venting rants.

"Venting rants?" Really now. Who is resorting to hyperbole here? I'm not aware of a single "venting rant" to ever appear in the Mormon Studies Review or its predecessors. Are you?

[sjdawg]

Alleged letter.

Unless and until the Professor takes credit/responsibility for the letter as posted...you simply don't know (and neither do I).

There is, after all, a very good reason that police (and others) are so careful with the chain of custody regarding evidence.

"Integrity" and "restraint" are not virtues which one normally associates with Dan's critics at the Shady Rest- and it's not as though they are above "piling on" to someone they think is vulnerable.

Lastly, even assuming that the purported letter is Peterson's response- I think we can forgive him for being just the teensiest bit outraged at such shabby and unprofessional treatment.

Didn't the professor take responsibility for his email when he stated he had reason to believe that none of the people he cc'd were the cause of the leak? If he believed his response had been altered that would have been a perfect opportunity to mention it. Sounds like he agrees that he wrote the email and cc'd 18 people.

Edited to add: I see that Dan has now posted that he did in fact write the email. I guess that is one controversy that can be put to rest.

Edited June 21, 2012 by sjdawg

[William Schryver]

The board of the Farms Review can certainly reverse an impulsive decision. I think that the waves are now hitting the shores of the Farms Review. Something will happen.

whyme, I know you mean well, but you don't know whereof you speak. Bradford's most recent action was merely the latest move in a coup that has been patiently effected over the course of several years. It will have to be reversed at 47 E. South Temple, if it is to be reversed at all.

[Greg Kofford Books]

Now, my personal view is that there is no room for another scholarly journal at BYU of a Mormon Studies variety, given BYU Studies' role, and that FARMS Review will fade away. FAIR will become the outlet for people like you and maybe me to vent hyperbole. But the body of work that is FARMS Review is still there for all to have and read. Hopefully BYU will keep it up on the internet, but I predict that that support will vanish.

FWIW, I would like to see the MSR become a sort of scholarly Publisher's Weekly (though only biannual or annual) for Mormon studies, with in depth essays focused on reviewing important and recent publications from scholarly presses on (or pertinent to) Mormonism--along with shorter reviews and notes about other Mormon studies related books. As Hamblin has pointed out, there are numerous scholarly titles being printed today by several presses, including a few university presses. It would be nice to have a source and forum for learning of and engaging them--something that the (dying) AML tries to do but falls short with the much-needed academic rigor.

[stemelbow]

Yes, I've already seen it said that this is all my fault.

YEah, I scrubbed my eyes a few times and re-read it to make sure I got that right. My goodness, they gots problems.

[sethpayne]

Seth, just want to say that I have very recently become acquainted with your blog, and I am very impressed with your calm and reasoned approach. I have seen you described on another board as "one of the good guys," and as I look back over past interactions we've had here, I'm at long last coming to realize that.

Scott, thanks for the kind words. I will certainly keep trying to be "one of the good guys." What I've found is that almost always, my initial visceral response to any given issue becomes more nuanced upon further reflection. I try (but do not always succeed) to give myself an opportunity for honest reflection before expressing a viewpoint on a controversial subject.

[Verum]

Let's not forget another player in this whole mess--John Dehlin of Mormon Stories, who I'm sure has well-placed informants all over. He has initiated a campaign to try and force the Church to change from the inside, and has recruitied several highly influential people (such as Joanna Brooks) advocate for him with the media. He says that he no longer believes in the Church and its teachings, yet remains a member so as to retain credibility in his mission of infiltration and mass apostasy from within. Will someone please excommunicate him already?

This is of course a huge misconception of the mission of Mormon Stories, a complete distortion of John Dehlin's character and intent, and a lack of understanding and empathy of those who struggle with faith in a church they've loved.

My best wishes to Dan Peterson whose work I have admired.

[Nemesis]

Let's try to stop making digs at eachother please.

Nemesis

[ERayR]

This is of course a huge misconception of the mission of Mormon Stories, a complete distortion of John Dehlin's character and intent, and a lack of understanding and empathy of those who struggle with faith in a church they've loved.

By their actions ye shall know them.

If they love it so much why are they trying to destroy it? Yes I did say destroy because what he is trying to do is to change it into something that can be found in abundance in main stream Christianity.

[William Schryver]

Let's not forget another player in this whole mess--John Dehlin of Mormon Stories, who I'm sure has well-placed informants all over. He has initiated a campaign to try and force the Church to change from the inside, and has recruitied several highly influential people (such as Joanna Brooks) advocate for him with the media. He says that he no longer believes in the Church and its teachings, yet remains a member so as to retain credibility in his mission of infiltration and mass apostasy from within. Will someone please excommunicate him already?

Whether or not Dehlin will be excommunicated anytime soon is less important to me than the fact that his true identity and purposes have been greatly illuminated over the course of the past several weeks.

Hopefully, the powers that be will connect Dehlin's purposes with those of the people who have worked to effect the coup d'état at the Maxwell Institute, and move to thwart them before it is too late.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm fine with such a group having an independent, published voice. There are plenty of independent academic journals I support. I think FAIR, as an unaffiliated entity, is perfectly fine, and has its place.

I'm not comfortable with such distinctive voices being financed and promulgated (and controlled) by a wing of an institution that has the imprimatur of the Church. Just as silly, to me, as it would to have Dialogue or Sunstone be financed and promulgated by an institution with the imprimatur of the Church.

BYU/MI has powerful resources available to make their scholastic publications and offerings stand out without needing to be divisively dogmatic.

What you call being "divisively dogmatic" I see as fulfilling the charge Elder Maxwell himself gave when he said let there be no more "uncontested slam dunks" from the critics. If that's divisive, well, the critics have never liked being contradicted.

If Bradford et al want a journal that eschews that mission, let them start one of their own, not hijack -- and thereby silence -- the Review.

[David T]

What you call being "divisively dogmatic" I see as fulfilling the charge Elder Maxwell himself gave when he said let there be no more "uncontested slam dunks" from the critics. If that's divisive, well, the critics have never liked being contradicted.

If Bradford et al want a journal that eschews that mission, let them start one of their own, not hijack -- and thereby silence -- the Review.

The best way to contest unwarranted slam dunks is to lay all the information out on the table without making up a doctrinal or psuedo-historical speculative scenario as to how this might (or must)fit with the Received Tradition. This leads to individuals relying on that apologetic foundation - and then when it is shown to collapse, that 'slam dunk' becomes, once again, uncontested. The current style puts band-aids on something that needs internal surgery.

If that's divisive, well, the critics have never liked being contradicted.

More often than not, it's divisive within the Church, to faithful and believing members, when it comes to interprative sidelined doctrinal defenses . Clearly that's a big part of what's going on here - internal frustrations and divisions. That's what I'm more interested in and focusing on than the reaction of your thoughts of Anti-church critics.

I say present the data in the peer-reviewed literature, and then let the unaffiliated FAIR or whatever present their doctrinal interpretation/speculation on the meaning of the data according.

I think the type of work FAIR does has a significant place - but the M.I., as I see it, shouldn't be that place.

Edited June 21, 2012 by David T

[alter idem]

Elder Maxwell was a gentleman and apologetics done in his name should be conducted in a way he would have approved. If changes need to be made then I hope they will make them but I hope they will not move completely away from apologetics, and from what some have said on this thread, it sounds like that is a possibility. I hope this is not correct.

[mrmandias]

I'm fine with such a group having an independent, published voice. There are plenty of independent academic journals I support. I think FAIR, as an unaffiliated entity, is perfectly fine, and has its place.

I'm not comfortable with such distinctive voices being financed and promulgated (and controlled) by a wing of an institution that has the imprimatur of the Church. Just as silly, to me, as it would to have Dialogue or Sunstone be financed and promulgated by an institution with the imprimatur of the Church.

BYU/MI has powerful resources available to make their scholastic publications and offerings stand out without needing to be divisively dogmatic.

I am not comfortable equating FARMS with Dialogue and Sunstone.

[stemelbow]

Hopefully, the powers that be will connect Dehlin's purposes with those of the people who have worked to effect the coup d'état at the Maxwell Institute, and move to thwart them before it is too late.

I probably shouldn't say anything about this, but hmm...that seems to be taking it a little far on first glance. Considering how it went down recently with him...maybe.

[mrmandias]

The best way to contest unwarranted slam dunks is to lay all the information out on the table without making up a doctrinal or psuedo-historical speculative scenario as to how this might (or must)fit with the Received Tradition. This leads to individuals relying on that apologetic foundation - and then when it is shown to collapse, that 'slam dunk' becomes, once again, uncontested. The current style puts band-aids on something that needs internal surgery.

More often than not, it's divisive within the Church, to faithful and believing members, when it comes to interprative sidelined doctrinal defenses . Clearly that's a big part of what's going on here - internal frustrations and divisions. That's what I'm more interested in and focusing on than the reaction of your thoughts of Anti-church critics.

Whenever I see someone arguing about tone, and saying they're fine with what some group is accomplishing, it just needs to be done in some other way, with some kind of changed affilitation, 9 times out of 10 that someone actually substantively disagrees with the group and is avoiding saying so. Thankfully you finally said so. You think the ideas advanced in FARMS are wrong, so you cheer it being put on the course to death.

But since I don't think they are mostly wrong, I don't. Perhaps you can point to the FARMS articles that you think were big, bad, and dangerous and we can argue about those instead of further sterile wrangles about procedural stuff.

[stemelbow]

Elder Maxwell was a gentleman and apologetics done in his name should be conducted in a way he would have approved. If changes need to be made then I hope they will make them but I hope they will not move completely away from apologetics, and from what some have said on this thread, it sounds like that is a possibility. I hope this is not correct.

I said earlier I don't know if I'm all that intrigued after what I've seen in this thread--regarding the change. In all honesty I can't figure out what MI will be without apologetics having some part in it.

[David T]

Whenever I see someone arguing about tone, and saying they're fine with what some group is accomplishing, it just needs to be done in some other way, with some kind of changed affilitation, 9 times out of 10 that someone actually substantively disagrees with the group and is avoiding saying so. Thankfully you finally said so. You think the ideas advanced in FARMS are wrong, so you cheer it being put on the course to death.

But since I don't think they are mostly wrong, I don't. Perhaps you can point to the FARMS articles that you think were big, bad, and dangerous and we can argue about those instead of further sterile wrangles about procedural stuff.

I think having doctrinal speculation presented dogmatically and in the name of scholarship in a Church-sponsored journal - whether I agree with them or not - is a mistake. There are fantastic articles from Dialogue and Sunstone I do agree with that I would be uncomfortable seeing in an M.I. publication.

Edited June 21, 2012 by David T