My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

This offers a string of enormous overgeneralizations, unsupported by any specifics.

SNIP

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.

What data are you talking about? Specifically.

Possibly relevant personal experience. I'd just arrived at Sunstone in SLC in 2002, and somehow got involved in a corridor conversation with Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel. I noticed an LDS friend from a California, Cupertino ward going by and said Hello. She looked up, recognized me, and said, "What are you doing here?" I showed her a copy of my recently published "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies." She glanced at the cover, and said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century fiction and nothing you can say will change my mind. I never read anything from FARMS. It makes me mad." I asked whether my JBMS 2/1 essay had made her mad, and she admitted that it hadn't but still went off in a huff, aparently angry with me for being a believer.

Some years before, she'd told our book group that she'd never read the Book of Mormon. I wondered which of the FARMS publications that she had never read had outraged her the most.

Now with the expansion of Mormon studies to places like Clairmont, and the newer publications from Oxford, there will be more opportunities for different venues for publication. The arrival of different places to publish different kinds of things does not cancel out the existence of the kinds of concerns that led to the Review in the first place, and a different kind of publication will not necessarily fill the needs that it has most successfully addressed. For a specific case, I point to the publication of Mark Ashurst McGee's and Larry Morris's responses to the claim that Joseph Smith initially told stories about a bleeding treasure ghost that only later morphed into Moroni. Those particular issues, I submit were some of the best LDS scholarship and apologetic writing ever published. As a metaphor for what they accomplish, "band-aid on something that needs surgery" does not seem to me to fit.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 21, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Analytics]

Many people argue that apologetics is bad for the church. Is it anti-Mormon to hold this view?

It is now wide open that while Jerry Bradford might not oppose mopologetics per se, he does think it's in the church's best interests not to be directly associated with it. It is inconceivable that Bradford would move the Insititute in this direction without significant support from General Authorities.

One of Dr. Scratch's conspiracy theories that gets a lot of ridicule is the theory that there are different factions among the general authorities. It's now established fact that for years there have been different factions within the MI itself. If the MI can have different factions on this, isn't it likely that there are also different factions among the general authorities?

From my point of view, the church has made huge strides over the last 10 years to be more open and honest about things and in general to be more respectable. This sudden move is entirely consistent with that direction.

But I doubt it's really a "sudden move". The decision makers decided years ago that the MI needed to become more respectable. Peterson is the one that has been in oposition to the direction the church wants to take it.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Analytics

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I just haven't seen that happening in the Review over the years. If what you have in mind is plausible conjecture that has the effect of keeping the question open so that faith has a chance to flourish, well, that's part and parcel of apologetics.

Maybe it's apologetics in general you object to, or at least affording apologetics the respectability of the name of BYU and Elder Maxwell. If so, I think a case has been made that Elder Maxwell himself would disagree. I know I do, and perhaps such disagreement is why you say the Review has been divisive.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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. It wants to limit its imprimatur to scholarly journals.

And how exactly does Dr. Peterson fit into the "non-academic hack" category?

[Analytics]

Elder Maxwell was a gentleman and apologetics done in his name should be conducted in a way he would have approved.

Well said.

[rameumptom]

If there were GAs concerned about MI and apologetics, why approve having FARMS become part of BYU in the first place? And why not have a GA tell Dan Peterson and others that the leadership wants a new direction. I'm sure that if GAs were to tell Dan such a thing, he would jump on board as one of the faithful.

Neil Maxwell was involved in FARMS and apologetics for many years prior to his death. I don't see, when there is already a liberal Dialogue and a very liberal Sunstone, that we need another liberal publication. And I think that is where this is going to in the struggle. I have no problem with the liberal publications. Heck, I was a speaker at this year's Kirtland Sunstone Symposium - about the only conservative speaker (my wife was very uncomfortable in the group), with moderators and speakers like Dan Vogel, and John Charles Duffy. Clearly, I was a fish out of water.

I don't mind that there is a Sunstone, and I'm friends with the editor. But there's got to be a place for conservative, strong believers to also have a home. That place has been FARMS/MI.

Now replacing Daniel Peterson as Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts of Anti-Mormonism:

[Freedom]

Any organization that has more than one person will have more than one faction. Any organization that moves in the direction of the person in charge has strong and effective leadership. I recall asking Pres Hunter a doctrinal question and he obliged but he qualified his answer by stating that if I asked each member of the quorum of 12 apostles I would likely get 12 different opinions. The church is made up of people with strong opinions. The quorums of the general authorities are made up of very driven people with very strong and diverse opinions. Hales (I think or perhaps Holland) tells a story of when he attended his first Quorum meeting with the 12. When the meeting was done, David Haight looked over at him and advised him that 'here we play hardball'. It was at that time that he realized the shocked feeling he had of the aggressive nature of discussion was very much apparent on his face.

I have read a lot of very questionable apologetics, and sometimes the defenders stretch the evidence to the point of breaking. There will be divisions in the church as it continues to grow and become more prominent. The leaders of the church are imperfect. I have been at the other end of the stick with general authorities who were, in my opinion, out of line but it never occurred to me to be bothered. I just dismissed them and accepted that they are humans with opinions. There will always be venues for people to publish interesting material, we do not need to rely on the Maxwell Institute.

[David T]

Kevin, as someone who has greatly enjoyed your work, I will say there is much work that is presented as apologetics which really is just good Scholarship that happens to also be beneficial to apologetic purposes.

For example, Don Bradley's presentation on the Kinderhook Plates, at FAIR, I feel was simply good scholarship, which also had an apologetic effect (the implications are still wide open).

The reverse also tends to occur.

Also, I'm not against apologetics for apolgetics sake in general. Just not as something published by a Church institution.

Here's a subtle example of something frustrating to me, personally, where Donald Parry added something that didn't need to be there, and, in my opinion, affected the piece as a whole, and made it a devotional apologetic work, rather than scholastic.

In his other wise very informative and paper on the DSS, he inserts this:

"While the scrolls augment the scanty information about Enoch in the Bible (see Genesis 5), our own Pearl of Great Price account of Enoch comprises the most complete and accurate record of this great prophet." -

Blanket statement assumption, again, assuming we're getting a historical account on an original actual antediluvian Enoch in the Joseph Smith bible Revision, discrediting and re-contextualizing the scholastic information he's giving.

Why was that necessary? As a 'reassurance' to those who hold the same position he does? "Yes, look at all this strange historical Enoch lit! But, you know, it's not as useful for knowing the Real Story as what Joseph gave us." - declaring that the Enoch literature is simply a degenerate form of Joseph Smith's original account of a single historical person ignores a great deal of the research and fascinating insights on the Enochic literature, wiped away with an assertion. That statement isn't one of scholarship.

He does a similar thing earlier with an interpretation of one of the Psalms, with an assertion that the modern application is the original intent, etc.

It's subtle things like that which are frustrating, and turn people off to taking the papers seriously.

[Kevin Christensen]

That's Parry. One guy. I respect his position as a DSS scholar. I liked his formattted edition of the Book of Mormon. I was anoyed by his infamous 1998 Ensign article on Noah. So does the question become, "Should he be allowed to say such things?" or "Should he be allowed to say such things in this publication" or "Should he expect to say such things and not have them criticized" or "Should his voice be the only one? Should he be unopposed?"

According to Joseph Smith, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." An alternative is "By silencing contraries, orthodoxy becomes unconcious, and uncontested ideology."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

That's Parry. One guy.

As published in an M.I. publication, which is the point at hand. And the point is he's clearly not the only one. And that this kind of thing is not an isolated event. I used this example because it was what specifically caused me to lose hope in what I saw was the great potential for that particular journal. It's a real life example that caused someone to stop buying the Journal.

So does the question become, "Should he be allowed to say such things?" or "Should he be allowed to say such things in this publication"

Of course he should be allowed to say it. I've been constantly saying all these voices should have a place.

My view is that doing so in what claims to be a scholastic journal under the auspices of a Church institution is what is not helpful. Had the editorial team been willing to suggest that those few out-of-place lines were not necessary, we wouldn't even be having this conversation concerning that paper, and that particular Journal.

On another end of the spectrum, there's Gee's JBM&ORS' response to Cook and Smith's paper, where, before the arguments are presented, Smith's credentials and study emphases are ignored in place of a condescending not-quite accurate note of some unrelated thing Smith did in the past.

It's not classy, and it's not helpful.

Edited June 21, 2012 by David T

[Freedom]

Parry is very well informed and I have most if not all his material. I find him to be of the J.F. McConkie style of only considering official statements of church leaders to interpret the scriptures, despite the fact that time has proven this to be a problematic methodology. I don't imagine him to be a big fan of 'rough stone rolling' or anything produced by Nibley.

[mfbukowski]

Yup. Here's what Hamblin said:

If they desire to clear anything up, correct any incorrect information it looks as though they have an open invite to do so.

The reality is, even if they are totally in the right (which I do not believe even CAN be the case with leaked confidential correspondence) they are handling it beyond incompetently.

The level of incompetence itself speaks volumes and the contents of those volumes are not good. In a case like this, stonewalling is the worst possible choice for them.

[Jersey Girl]

Well, hello, Daniel, :-)

You know, I've been reading about "all of this" that has taken place in your life over the past few days. I've seen the criticisms, the predictions, the mockery, the speculations, as if anyone beyond the parties directly involved have the inside track.

Just this morning, I found myself in a state of reflecting on some of the issues that I face in my IRL, you know, the life that people don't see on these boards? And as they say, "the planes crossed" between my thoughts about my life and what appears to be going on in yours. If I had to guess, I would place you somewhere in my peer group so far as age goes. Maybe it's the references that you used to make to the Beatles that "date" you in my mind. I just had a few things that I wanted to say to you here and while my comments may be lost in the rhetorical and political shuffle of these so-called discussions, I need to know that I made them.

Something about your being "put out to pasture" seems to be the catalyst that made me feel compelled to write to you and given the fact that I try to avoid email and that my online participation is now limited primarily to one LDS related board, I thought it best to express myself here.

I admittedly don't know about all of the positions that you hold, though my impression is that you live a life that is akin to the plate spinner on Ed Sullivan. If that is so, then you are much like me. I am more than certain that you are driven by passion in perhaps more than one area and try to tick off all the boxes in an effort to forward your ideas, support the education of many and not just those at BYU, and have a strong desire to support what you think is best for your church.

You know all too well, that I disagree with much of the LDS Church's doctrines and practices. I also think you know that the topic of Mormonism ran it's course for me many years ago. I'm not here to criticize the mechanics of what has taken place this past week. Not at all.

You know about some of the things that have taken place in my life over the past year or more, and while this has been the most difficult time, I haven't passed through it without grace or learning from it. And I still have miles to go. (Nod to Frost).

Many years ago, when I was still a member of a Southern Baptist Church (I no longer am, does that buy me street cred around here? :-), I took a course called "Experiencing God", based on the book authored by Henry T. Blackaby, "Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God". Now, I have no other experience with the work of Blackaby other than just that one course, so don't hold me to being a supporter of his work. But I did learn from that course, life applications that I still rely on today. This will likely be nothing new to you, a believer.

The main message of the "Experiencing God" course, was that God speaks to us through his Word, through circumstances and through other people. I was impressed by the Biblical correlations that were presented that match these very concepts. Also included in that course, was the idea that when we feel called by God to do or not do a thing, that our first response as human beings is likely to be total resistance. Resistance because we can't see the wisdom in the call, resistance because we believe the call will be too disruptive to our lives, and resistance because we don't believe we are equipped to take on the call and we're not trusting enough to believe that God will equip us. IOW, God sends the message, we resist, and it is our place to accept the call, trusting that God knows better than we do, that he chose well. :-)

When I reflect on some of the decisions that I am facing right this very moment in my life and the decisions that have been thrust on you in your professional life, I am struck by the fact that the nature of the decisions are a) life changing and b) might contain resistance on our individual parts. And there is likely a "crossroads" element to them.

How close am I? :-)

What I have learned over the past near, two years, is that when life circumstances seem to go awry, there automatically follows a process whereby, just like cream rises to the top of fresh milk, priorities rise to the top, and this process brings into focus what truly matters in our lives. Our families, our passions and whatever talents that God has given us to take care of both.

You are in a place right now where you have the opportunity to honor the memory of your brother, by accepting a state of remembrance and grief. Do not miss the chance to do this for yourself. Whatever it takes, just do it. Quiet moments alone with your thoughts, the chance to remember all that you have lost and give that heartache a chance to do it's work. It will.

Insofar as your passions are concerned, whatever part of your passion that you put into this former position, you can still put it into your other work or discover new passions that haven't emerged in your life to date.

Far from this being a situation of being "put out to pasture", this indeed could be the crossroads in which you have a chance to run free.

Koo koo ka joob,

Jersey

;-)

Edited June 22, 2012 by Jersey Girl

[mfbukowski]

That's why I asked for confirmation if the Maxwell Institute is located on BYU Provo campus. If so (and I'm now 99% certain it is) I certainly hope that the BYU Board of Directors gets involved. I don't mind writing them either. Afterall, BYU calls me for donations.

You have to hit them where it hurts, and indeed you have found the spot.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I second that emotion!

[cinepro]

I find him to be of the J.F. McConkie style of only considering official statements of church leaders to interpret the scriptures,

You say "only considering official statements of church leaders to interpret the scriptures" like it's a bad thing.

[nutshell]

nice thoughts JG

[Calm]

Apologetics plays an important role in the discourse about our faith. Apologetics serves primarily as a response to polemics. These issues almost always come at the cracks, at the edges - they show up where we have contradictions and inconsistencies in our doctrine and in our narratives. Apologetics plays an important fundamental role in understanding theology and doctrine.

Much of our scholarship that isn't particularly apologetic in nature or directly polemical is driven by polemics and apologetics. Trying to remove apologetics from the discourse won't help the scholarship, or make it particularly more palatable to non-LDS. Instead, it will have a rather chilling affect on the scholarly publications of the institutions attempting to censor that apologetic agenda.

Perhaps it is this investigation into controversial issues, where things are rarely black and white that bothers some members of the church. It forces us to recognize sometimes unpleasant realities. This conflict doesn't create chaos, it creates growth. And I have seen and communicated with many, many LDS members who came away from their encounter with apologetic material with stronger faith and a better understanding of the gospel. Stability rarely makes for good religion.

I think that if the NAMI decides to forgo apologetics as part of its lineup, they will also lose a great deal of scholarly contributions as well - and it will be to their detriment. Eventually their publications simply won't have the draw and appeal to the Mormon community (let alone any non-Mormon community) to play much of a role. The idea that apologetics needs to go away is simply ludicrous. The critics won't go away. And we sometimes tend to forget that the most remembered texts produced by the early church (apart from the canon) are the texts of the apologists. 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

No points available, so must engage in a bit of cheerleading here. Very well said.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Well said, Scott.

[mfbukowski]

However, I see Bradford's desires and intents for the MI, as I've seen them expressed, to be a good ones.

But here is the problem: the phenomenon of the "ivory tower" is very real and is why I left academia. They are not in the real world.

Whoever is really in charge of the MI, I presume Bradford, and whoever really wants to make it more "academic" is so used to polite scholarship that they are incompetent in an actual political battle, which will now entail the press and adverse publicity etc. That stuff is totally above the heads (or below the belts) of the polite academic establishment that they are not able to handle it.

These individuals (or individual) who do not like apologetics now find themselves immersed in a down and dirty battle of - yes, apologetics, perhaps the worst apologetic battle of their insulated academic career(s)

That is not the kind of administrator who is needed in that position. He is not ready for it.

[Freedom]

You say "only considering official statements of church leaders to interpret the scriptures" like it's a bad thing.

If you want to be a legitimate scholar, it is a bad thing. We should interpret the scriptures based on what they say, not based on the opinion of a long ago church leader. Smith and McConkie, for example, interpreted the scriptures very literally; however we have learned that Hebrew is not English, something that these two scholars did not understand. If MI wants to be 'more scholarly' then they will have to stop publishing Parry. If they continue to publish his works, then they are hypocrites.

[jwhitlock]

That's Parry. One guy. I respect his position as a DSS scholar. I liked his formattted edition of the Book of Mormon. I was anoyed by his infamous 1998 Ensign article on Noah. So does the question become, "Should he be allowed to say such things?" or "Should he be allowed to say such things in this publication" or "Should he expect to say such things and not have them criticized" or "Should his voice be the only one? Should he be unopposed?"

According to Joseph Smith, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." An alternative is "By silencing contraries, orthodoxy becomes unconcious, and uncontested ideology."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Good point.

It's interesting that apologists are accused of imposing their viewpoint on the church by enemies of the church; however, in this case where apologetic voices are being silenced at the MI using dubious methods, enemies of the church are cheering it on in the name of "openness".

When I see critics and enemies of the church applauding something happening in a church organization, it's a definite sign that something is headed in the wrong direction.

[KevinG]

The last time I sat in a room with BYU department heads and a General Authority the GA politely corrected the Dept. Heads and they seethed and murmured for days afterwards. I have not confused BYU departments (or Church headquarters departments) with the priesthood leadership of the Church since my graduate school days.

I would not read too much of an interdepartmental squabble over editorial directions - but leave it to the perpetual critics and stalkers to make great celebrations over the impending defrocking and quartering of DCP and his (please pronounce this word with spittle flying from your angry lips) apologist minions.

[stemelbow]

Well, hello, Daniel, :-)

You know, I've been reading about "all of this" that has taken place in your life over the past few days. I've seen the criticisms, the predictions, the mockery, the speculations, as if anyone beyond the parties directly involved have the inside track.

Just this morning, I found myself in a state of reflecting on some of the issues that I face in my IRL, you know, the life that people don't see on these boards? And as they say, "the planes crossed" between my thoughts about my life and what appears to be going on in yours. If I had to guess, I would place you somewhere in my peer group so far as age goes. Maybe it's the references that you used to make to the Beatles that "date" you in my mind. I just had a few things that I wanted to say to you here and while my comments may be lost in the rhetorical and political shuffle of these so-called discussions, I need to know that I made them.

Something about your being "put out to pasture" seems to be the catalyst that made me feel compelled to write to you and given the fact that I try to avoid email and that my online participation is now limited primarily to one LDS related board, I thought it best to express myself here.

I admittedly don't know about all of the positions that you hold, though my impression is that you live a life that is akin to the plate spinner on Ed Sullivan. If that is so, then you are much like me. I am more than certain that you are driven by passion in perhaps more than one area and try to tick off all the boxes in an effort to forward your ideas, support the education of many and not just those at BYU, and have a strong desire to support what you think is best for your church.

You know all too well, that I disagree with much of the LDS Church's doctrines and practices. I also think you know that the topic of Mormonism ran it's course for me many years ago. I'm not here to criticize the mechanics of what has taken place this past week. Not at all.

You know about some of the things that have taken place in my life over the past year or more, and while this has been the most difficult time, I haven't passed through it without grace or learning from it. And I still have miles to go. (Nod to Frost).

Many years ago, when I was still a member of a Southern Baptist Church (I no longer am, does that buy me street cred around here? :-), I took a course called "Experiencing God", based on the book authored by Henry T. Blackaby, "Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God". Now, I have no other experience with the work of Blackaby other than just that one course, so don't hold me to being a supporter of his work. But I did learn from that course, life applications that I still rely on today. This will likely be nothing new to you, a believer.

The main message of the "Experiencing God" course, was that God speaks to us through his Word, through circumstances and through other people. I was impressed by the Biblical correlations that were presented that match these very concepts. Also included in that course, was the idea that when we feel called by God to do or not do a thing, that our first response as human beings is likely to be total resistance. Resistance because we can't see the wisdom in the call, resistance because we believe the call will be too disruptive to our lives, and resistance because we don't believe we are equipped to take on the call and we're not trusting enough to believe that God will equip us. IOW, God sends the message, we resist, and it is our place to accept the call, trusting that God knows better than we do, that he chose well. :-)

When I reflect on some of the decisions that I am facing right this very moment in my life and the decisions that have been thrust on you in your professional life, I am struck by the fact that the nature of the decisions are a) life changing and b) might contain resistance on our individual parts. And there is likely a "crossroads" element to them.

How close am I? :-)

What I have learned over the past near, two years, is that when life circumstances seem to go awry, there automatically follows a process whereby, just like cream rises to the top of fresh milk, priorities rise to the top, and this process brings into focus what truly matters in our lives. Our families, our passions and whatever talents that God has given us to take care of both.

You are in a place right now where you have the opportunity to honor the memory of your brother, by accepting a state rememberance and grief. Do not miss the chance to do this for yourself. Whatever it takes, just do it. Quiet moments alone with your thoughts, the chance to remember all that you have lost and give that heartache a chance to do it's work. It will.

Insofar as your passions are concerned, whatever part of your passion that you put into this former position, you can still put it into your other work or discover new passions that haven't emerged in your life to date.

Far from this being a situation of being "put out to pasture", this indeed could be the crossroads in which you have a chance to run free.

Koo koo ka joob,

Jersey

;-)

Every once in a while, Someone posts something that makes me stop and say to myself, "duh...you've been seeing this all wrong and any participation you have offered has been a waste of your and everyone else's time."

oops.

Good post.

[mfbukowski]

One last thought: if I know how institutions work, Hamblin's and especially Petersen's posting here was probably a mistake. Injustice being what it is, it will be seen as equivalent offenses that excuse or even justify any leaks to anti-Mormons or skeezy email firings and lawsuit threats.

A political mistake, possibly. But when one mobilizes the troops the politics has taken a new direction and big changes are in the air

Maybe that is just the old student radical in me coming out, but I think a shake-up or two can be a good thing.