Two Different Visions For The Maxwell Institute

[Bill Hamblin]

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/two-different-visions-for-the-maxwell-institute/

If you want to compare Bradford’s “new” vision for the Maxwell Institute with the “old” FARMS vision, compare the current Maxwell Institute mission statement with the traditional FARMS mission statement.

Original Maxwell Institute mission statement:

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship encourages and supports research on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Bible, other ancient scripture, and related subjects. The Maxwell Institute publishes and distributes titles in these areas for the benefit of scholars and interested Latter-day Saint readers. Primary research interests at the Maxwell Institute include the history, language, literature, culture, geography, politics, and law relevant to ancient scripture. Although such subjects are of secondary importance when compared with the spiritual and eternal messages of scripture, solid research and academic perspectives can supply certain kinds of useful information, even if only tentatively, concerning many significant and interesting questions about scripture. The Maxwell Institute makes reports about this research available widely, promptly, and economically. These publications are peer reviewed to ensure that scholarly standards are met. The proceeds from the sale of these materials are used to support further research and publications.

Current Maxwell Institute mission statement:

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.

The difference in vision is about as clear as possible. The first statement shows what FARMS was, the second statement shows what Bradford and his allies want the Maxwell Institute to become, and, indeed, to a large extent what it already has become. And the fact of the matter is that I don’t object to the current Maxwell Institute’s mission statement. It is a worthwhile mission and I support it.

What I find objectionable is that the resources, personnel, time, and money that were originally dedicated to the FARMS mission have been diverted to other projects related to the new vision of its mission, while systematically dismantling the elements of the original mission, as most can be most starkly seen by Dan’s recent dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think that very fine fellows I've admired for years are thinking very clearly in this phase of MI's life, and I'm sorry to put my foot in this one again.

The two mission statements aren't really that different; one is specific and the second is vague. But note the first mission statement says absolutely nothing about confrontational apologetics (which, again, I supported at the Platinum level and to which I contributed two publications).

It could be said, perhaps, that BYU has moved its resources to align itself with the original mission of FARMS/MI.

[mrmandias]

I don't think that very fine fellows I've admired for years are thinking very clearly in this phase of MI's life, and I'm sorry to put my foot in this one again.

The two mission statements aren't really that different; one is specific and the second is vague. But note the first mission statement says absolutely nothing about confrontational apologetics (which, again, I supported at the Platinum level and to which I contributed two publications).

It could be said, perhaps, that BYU has moved its resources to align itself with the original mission of FARMS/MI.

The first mission statement had a clear commitment to the church. The second one doesn't. That's the main difference I see in the vision--being just another academic journal or scholarship in service of the gospel.

[Bob Crockett]

The first mission statement had a clear commitment to the church. The second one doesn't. That's the main difference I see in the vision--being just another academic journal or scholarship in service of the gospel.

I don't see it.

[Calm]

The first mission statement had a clear commitment to the church. The second one doesn't.

deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints

My problem is that purely academic material is not really all that accessible to many LDS, they are not interested in such nor have the training to evaluate it. What I liked about FARMS is that it tried to accommodate those with less academic background (and then FAIR worked even harder at it to become a clearinghouse of information, much of which had been provided by the scholars and researchers through FARMS.)

Considering the number of individuals who have complained about the lack of access to historical and controversial accounts for faithful LDS, it seems strange to me to add another academic outlet through the removal of one that worked at bridging the gap between academic and lay member. It is very disappointing.

Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

My problem is that purely academic material is not really all that accessible to many LDS, they are not interested in such nor have the training to evaluate it. What I liked about FARMS is that it tried to accommodate those with less academic background (and then FAIR worked even harder at it to become a clearinghouse of information, much of which had been provided by the scholars and researchers through FARMS.)

Considering the number of individuals who have complained about the lack of access to historical and controversial accounts for faithful LDS, it seems strange to me to add another academic outlet through the removal of one that worked at bridging the gap between academic and lay member. It is very disappointing.

I'm out of rep points so will just say hear, hear.

[Nemesis]

I'm out of rep points so will just say hear, hear.

I just upped them considerably. You can also see who gave rep points.

Nemesis

[ERayR]

I just upped them considerably. You can also see who gave rep points.

Nemesis

Thank you

[mrmandias]

I don't see it.

Fair enough. I reread them more carefully and I see your point. But this phrase still strikes me as a differentiator:

"Although such subjects are of secondary importance when compared with the spiritual and eternal messages of scripture,"

Edited June 22, 2012 by mrmandias

[why me]

What I find objectionable is that the resources, personnel, time, and money that were originally dedicated to the FARMS mission have been diverted to other projects related to the new vision of its mission, while systematically dismantling the elements of the original mission, as most can be most starkly seen by Dan’s recent dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

Times have changed. The Internet has changed the way lds academics need to do their research and for what purpose. The critics are having a wonderful time mocking and bashing the church. And they are also having a wonderful time giving their historical interpretations to the members who may read them. And they are succeeding. And this is why there is such glee on the exer boards about Dan's dismissal. Game one to the critics.

There also needs to be a hard hitting academic journal to confront the attacks. Unfortunately, this will not be happening with the change. I am afraid that the lds church will be losing many opportunities to defend itself when Farms changes direction.

Edited June 22, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Current Maxwell Institute mission statement:

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.

This will be a losing statement. The lds critics seeks to lead people out of the church through hypothetical illustrations, interpretations and repeating exmormon chants about how the church hides its doctrine and lies about it. Very little can deepen understanding when a member is engaged reading exmormon interpretations. There is no goodwill among most of the critics of the lds church toward the lds church. Just the opposite.

Goodwill and mutual respect are not apart of their vocabulary.

[Calm]

I would suspect that Bradford's vision is not about engaging that type of critic, but rather the more academic one who is not all that interested in truth claims and the contentions that arise when such clash.

It would be interesting to have some examples of what he considers the ideal approach/publication for the MI to be producing.

Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

never mind

Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nevo]

My problem is that purely academic material is not really all that accessible to many LDS, they are not interested in such nor have the training to evaluate it. What I liked about FARMS is that it tried to accommodate those with less academic background (and then FAIR worked even harder at it to become a clearinghouse of information, much of which had been provided by the scholars and researchers through FARMS.)

I don't know, Cal. Outside of Insights and the Review, most FARMS/MI publications have not historically catered to the average Latter-day Saint. I have thick volumes on my shelf about King Benjamin's speech, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, legal cases in the Book of Mormon, a festschrift for Truman Madsen, etc. None of these is light reading. It seems to me that FARMS has only ever published a handful of books that could truly be said to be aimed at the "general reader." (How many non-academically inclined Saints do you suppose have devoured The Allegory of the Olive Tree or Warfare in the Book of Mormon? I daresay not very many.)

In other words, I think FARMS/MI scholarship has always appealed to a relatively small audience, and I expect that will continue to be the case. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Scholarship isn't for everyone.

That said, I do hope that the Maxwell Institute will continue to sponsor cutting-edge scholarship on the Restoration scriptures. If it is true that John Welch (whose research I greatly admire) has been marginalized, then that really is a shame. I can understand why the powers-that-be at MI would see the Review as a liability as they try to court respectability in the emerging world of "Mormon Studies," but I don't understand why they would be uncomfortable with someone like Welch—an apologist-scholar of the first rank.

[Vance]

You can also see who gave rep points.

Nemesis

How does one go about doing that?

[Nevo]

How does one go about doing that?

Click the green box with the number in it.

[Vance]

Click the green box with the number in it.

Thanks!

[Libs]

I didn't see this thread when I asked a question about the new goals of MI on the other thread.

This is interesting. So, the new goal is basically just an addition to the old goal, stating more efforts towards developing goodwill towards the critics of the church?

I saw some people stating that Book of Mormon research would be put aside. Is that true?

[ERayR]

I didn't see this thread when I asked a question about the new goals of MI on the other thread.

This is interesting. So, the new goal is basically just an addition to the old goal, stating more efforts towards developing goodwill towards the critics of the church?

I saw some people stating that Book of Mormon research would be put aside. Is that true?

Pretty much. Kind of like Joseph Smith making efforts towards developing goodwill with Gov. Boggs.

[Calm]

I don't know, Cal. Outside of Insights and the Review, most FARMS/MI publications have not historically catered to the average Latter-day Saint. I have thick volumes on my shelf about King Benjamin's speech, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, legal cases in the Book of Mormon, a festschrift for Truman Madsen, etc. None of these is light reading. It seems to me that FARMS has only ever published a handful of books that could truly be said to be aimed at the "general reader." (How many non-academically inclined Saints do you suppose have devoured The Allegory of the Olive Tree or Warfare in the Book of Mormon? I daresay not very many.)

In other words, I think FARMS/MI scholarship has always appealed to a relatively small audience, and I expect that will continue to be the case. I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. Scholarship isn't for everyone.

That said, I do hope that the Maxwell Institute will continue to sponsor cutting-edge scholarship on the Restoration scriptures. If it is true that John Welch (whose research I greatly admire) has been marginalized, then that really is a shame. I can understand why the powers-that-be at MI would see the Review as a liability as they try to court respectability in the emerging world of "Mormon Studies," but I don't understand why they would be uncomfortable with someone like Welch—an apologist-scholar of the first rank.

I will grant that my extended family and friends generally are university educated, many with post graduate degrees and so may not be typical in their affection for FARMS/MI as nighttime reading material.

Still I see FARMS/MI as being a step down from the "ivory tower" where perhaps the general membership don't find it appealing, but it is made accessible to those who can make it accessible to the general public such as FAIR, such as CES teachers, home teachers etc. (I think my first exposure to FARMS was through a home teacher). I think removing FARMS/MI from the equation, placing it among the "ivory tower" of pure scholarship will dramatically slow down the exchange of information, the trickle down effect so to speak.

[Libs]

Pretty much. Kind of like Joseph Smith making efforts towards developing goodwill with Gov. Boggs.

I kind of doubt that they have the "Gov Boggs" type, in mind. Perhaps, something akin to what Robert Millet and Richard Mouw have been doing in their interfaith discussions? Or research supporting that kind of effort?

Edited June 22, 2012 by Libs

[ERayR]

I kind of doubt that they have the "Gov Boggs" type, in mind. Perhaps, something akin to what Robert Millet and Richard Mouw have been doing in their interfaith discussions? Or research supporting that kind of effort?

That level of outreach could have been and was being done successfully with Dr. Peterson intact in his post so that doesn't wash for me.

[Calm]

If you look at the recent get together in Idaho, I suspect that falls too close to apologetics for comfort. More likely in my view the aim is what has been going on with the Mormon Studies programs that sprouted up in universities such as Claremont.

[why me]

I saw some people stating that Book of Mormon research would be put aside. Is that true?

If FARMs takes a mild approach to church history, attempting to go along with the 'new' mission statement, the internet critics will have a field day in derailing FARMs by claiming that it is just another church hatchet job. And in the eyes of doubting members reading critic sites, FARMs will have no impact at all because the critics will claim that FARMs 'hides' church history and doctrine.

There are not many neutral forces out there that can write about Mormonism from a neutral perspective.

[why me]

That level of outreach could have been and was being done successfully with Dr. Peterson intact in his post so that doesn't wash for me.

I think that Dan's release was not business but personal. The way it was done shows signs of dislike or hate. It could have been different with a call in to the office and a discussion with Dan about the new direction and just where he stands about it. But to be away not just from the state but from the country and get an email...well...what can be said about that?

It must have been a shock for Dan to read after years of dedicated service to the cause.