My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[cinepro]

As a longtime reader of the review (thanks to my father's subscription growing up), I am really surprised by these recent developments. And apart from my disappointment with the decisions made regarding DCP, I'm absolutely shocked at the way in which the "changes" were carried out. Such shenanigans are absolutely bush-league, and I would expect much more from an "Institute" associated with BYU, especially when dealing with Professor Peterson.

My only regret is that I have no pending donations to cancel in indignation. I would even get to end the conversation with my favorite "Good day sir. I said GOOD DAY!" But alas, it is not to be.

In looking for an answer to the question "Who the heck is Gerald Bradford, and where does he come off firing Daniel Peterson?", I came across the current Mission Statement of the MI. I post it here with the question: where does apologetics specifically fit into this mission? The only "interaction" with non-LDS is proposed as being of "mutual respect" and "good faith." This does not bring to mind apologetics, no matter how polite and well-intentioned.

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.

Edited June 21, 2012 by cinepro

[Calm]

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.

I would have thought presenting a faithful view of a scholastic issue would be exactly appropriate for a Church institution to publish. Purging faith from its pages is what secular scholarship is for. Providing scholarship in a faithful way....how is this not helpful in furthering the Church's work, which should be the primary work of any church institution paid for in part by the tithes of faithful members?

[KevinG]

One can be apologetic and respectful. I'm sure Dr P has had some practice at this with say Isalm or Easter Orthodox or Judaism or, Protestants or... well just a few groups.

[why me]

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.

I think that it caught them by surprise. And now they are playing clean up or damage control. The leaked information was a terrible moment for MI. I don't think that they can recover the trust by contributors and with the staff. Something went terribly wrong. And the man behind it all needs to step down.

[Cobalt-70]

In looking for an answer to the question "Who the heck is Gerald Bradford, and where does he come off firing Daniel Peterson?", I came across the current Mission Statement of the MI. I post it here with the question: where does apologetics specifically fit into this mission? The only "interaction" with non-LDS is proposed as being of "mutual respect" and "good faith." This does not bring to mind apologetics, no matter how polite and well-intentioned.

Quote

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.

That is a great ideal, and that ought to be what MI is about. When we think of apologetics as an adversarial basketball game, and of MI's purpose as preventing "uncontested slam dunks," then Mormon apologetics will never win fans who aren't already Team Mormon. Few people watching a basketball game switch their fan allegiance mid-game. When the other side puts on an energetic defense, that just makes the eventual perceived win that much sweeter.

[Pahoran]

That is a great ideal, and that ought to be what MI is about. When we think of apologetics as an adversarial basketball game, and of MI's purpose as preventing "uncontested slam dunks," then Mormon apologetics will never win fans who aren't already Team Mormon. Few people watching a basketball game switch their fan allegiance mid-game. When the other side puts on an energetic defense, that just makes the eventual perceived win that much sweeter.

Thank you for finally admitting which team you really support.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I didn't know defending one's beliefs or coreligionists was a game with a scorecard. That explains the behavior of a lot of critics- are they counting souls saved from Mormonism or simply boasting of a more abstract tally?

P.S. I think the Young Men's program and the Church in general would fare better if the basketball hoops were removed from cultural halls in North America. But that's just my opinion.

Edited June 21, 2012 by KevinG

[Pahoran]

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

Well, what do you think?

Interestingly, the "many people" who supposedly "hold this view" -- or, at least, who advance it -- are almost invariably anti-Mormons. Might that be a clue?

The fact is that apologetics is not bad for the Church. Those who claim that it is are making that claim entirely for tactical purposes, i.e. to demoralise and confuse the opposition.

Conclusion: the claim is, unquestionably, an anti-Mormon one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I think the leaking of confidential communications is the real concern that BYU should have. I would not be surprised if this is the kind of thing that gets "institutes" and other affiliated groups shut down, reabsorbed into other departments or shuffled into oblivion. Just the sort of thing those who equate "defense of the faith" with a wretched hive of villainy will celebrate. I guess it will be up to us amateurs to point out that Mormonism isn't a hell bound cult since the professional academics have no business doing so.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not aware of a single "venting rant" to ever appear in the Mormon Studies Review or its predecessors. Are you?

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.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

But, BYU obviously does not want to support apologetics and the tone that it brings to a university-sponsored publication.

If BYU didn't want to support apologetics, then it seems strange that it asked FARMS to come under its wing in the first place.

Is there any evidence that this particular choice of shutting down apologetics is anything besides a personal choice by the person currently at the head of the MI?

[KevinG]

You know I'm looking for clients for my OD and conflict resolution consultancy - I would love to work with MI and their management team on finding better ways to manage communications and conflict in organizations. Just give me a contact where I can reach them.

Would it be gauche to post the website here?

Edited June 21, 2012 by KevinG

[ERayR]

You know I'm looking for clients for my OD and conflict resolution consultancy - I would love to work with MI and their management team on finding better ways to manage communications and conflict in organizations. Just give me a contact where I can reach them.

Would it be gauche to post the website here?

If you get a contract I would like to send you my resume and be able to work on this project. :diablo:

[why me]

I think the leaking of confidential communications is the real concern that BYU should have. I would not be surprised if this is the kind of thing that gets "institutes" and other affiliated groups shut down, reabsorbed into other departments or shuffled into oblivion.

I think that when Dan returns from abroad and takes them on, we may see some sparks. Hopefully, Dan will have his supporters behind him. The leak needs to be tackled and the informant needs to be exposed. If not, MI will still have a mole in their ranks feeding the exmormons information on the sly.

[why me]

But, give BYU and its administration the benefit of the doubt here. Apologetics is a very controversial area. Dr. Peterson was and is a lightning rod, which sharks swimming beneath him. BYU didn't want that any more. Or so it appears.

Are you sure that it was BYU? I have a feeling that they were just as shocked by what has happened. Certainly, if the administration of BYU gave permission for Dan's dismissal while he was away, well, what can I say? The administration would then owe Dan a huge apology. No church sponsored organization should treat someone that way.

[Bob Crockett]

If BYU didn't want to support apologetics, then it seems strange that it asked FARMS to come under its wing in the first place.

Is there any evidence that this particular choice of shutting down apologetics is anything besides a personal choice by the person currently at the head of the MI?

I was Jack Welch's very first research assistant when he came to BYU. The FARMS of that day is different than the MI of today.

I was in a small gathering of about forty Saints in Los Angeles to hear Elder Holland's first address as an apostle, when he fulfilled an obligation he had made when he was a lesser light. I wish I could recall all that he said, but he pointed out FARMS specifically and said, "FARMS is doing many wonderful things." He listed them; none were apologetic in nature.

Since then, FARMS has gone from a small almost-hobby-horse of specialized Book of Mormon studies and the publisher of papers and a review to a widely-read and controversial semi-annual often taking huge potshots at very controversial pieces and people. The John Dehlins of the world are going to call their favorite general authority, and eventually somebody's going to say, where there's smoke, there must be no light.

Are you sure that it was BYU? I have a feeling that they were just as shocked by what has happened. Certainly, if the administration of BYU gave permission for Dan's dismissal while he was away, well, what can I say? The administration would then owe Dan a huge apology. No church sponsored organization should treat someone that way.

I am sure it was "BYU" because Bradford is an administrator there. That he went off the deep end and off on a lark might have occurred, I suppose, but the first assumption when an institution acts is that it is the institution that is acting. Ockham's Razor is the nerd term for it; there is a legal presumption as well. The more time passes without Dr. Peterson announcing that he's been vindicated means more and more that the presumption becomes conclusive.

Again, I don't buy the "while away" nonsense. Not in today's world. A tenured professor is always on the clock.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Daniel Peterson]

Correction: It's not true that Dr. Bradford and I "weren't talking." We spoke for several hours in his office just a few days before I left for Israel. There were different perspectives, but it wasn't an argument or a fight. No voices were raised, and the conversation ended, so far as I could tell, amicably.

[rpn]

I can't help but wonder if this isn't simply a fight about the devlin piece. And if that is "different vision" is simply euphemism for no more of those critical stories, then why wouldn't he have just said so. Doing pieces like that one was described and counter described as being might NOT be appropriate for Maxwell Institute, and there would be no great harm in choosing not to use articles in that category. But that is a far cry from what appears to be being said now, and refusing a whole issue for six months. One has to wonder if any of that Review was approved.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I stand corrected. When all I have to go on is dirty laundry, reading between the lines isn't going to yield accurate results.

But, it is time to triumph in academics rather than in turf wars. BYU owns the turf.

[mrmandias]

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.

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.

Your view is that the money people have donated to FARMS should be diverted to purposes you find more congenial; that people who dedicate themselves to Mormon apologetics should not try to claim any kind of mantle of scholarship and rigor; but that if they cede their money, their institution, and their pretensions to be taken seriously, you are pleased to deign to let them continue doing what they do.

[Calm]

.

Again, I don't buy the "while away" nonsense. Not in today's world. A tenured professor is always on the clock.

My experience or rather my husband's is that summer time is the worst for getting anything addressed. Not only are people scattered, but they are involved in their own pet projects and don't want to be interrupted. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[mrmandias]

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.

I would agree with this perspective if FARMS had just kinda grown under BYU's auspices in recent years.. But FARMS has a longer history and was what it was when BYU took it in. I think that creates some obligations on BYU's part to not try to sterilize FARMS. If it really is incompatible with BYU--I can see that it could be--the honorable thing to do would be to hive FARMS off again.

[Bob Oliverio]

I will admit I've never heard of the Maxwell Institute or FARMS prior to this board.  As far as I can tell, no one in our ward here has either.  Since I did not go to BYU or grow up in Utah I asked my wife if she or any in her family in Utah know anything about all this stuff. Nothing!

Is this a big deal somewhere and would one expect any media coverage of it in Utah?  I only ask because it sounds like that this is a huge issue on this board.  Are those of us outside of Utah just out of the loop?  Does any of this controversy resonate anywhere in the Church??

[volgadon]

Never mind.

Edited June 22, 2012 by volgadon

[MitoticSlime]

I will admit I've never heard of the Maxwell Institute or FARMS prior to this board. As far as I can tell, no one in our ward here has either. Since I did not go to BYU or grow up in Utah I asked my wife if she or any in her family in Utah know anything about all this stuff. Nothing!

Is this a big deal somewhere and would one expect any media coverage of it in Utah? I only ask because it sounds like that this is a huge issue on this board. Are those of us outside of Utah just out of the loop? Does any of this controversy resonate anywhere in the Church??

No, you've got the right impression. The majority of the church is unaware of all of this, even in Utah.