Two Different Visions For The Maxwell Institute

[ERayR]

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.

Yes and the nice little touch about staying on as a fund raiser and adviser, which we can and very probably will ignore as long as you are bringing in the money.

[Nevo]

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.

I think you're right. Richard Bushman had this to say in the Journal of American History a few years ago:

The apologists still feel that they are living in a hostile world. The church has real enemies, they firmly believe, and war has to be waged. Not all of the apologists write pugnaciously, but they all write defensively. If not exactly at war with an enemy, they are certainly engaged in debate.... The apologists zealously propound rational arguments to counter the critics of Joseph Smith and accumulate piles of evidence to demonstrate the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Every educated Mormon knows of these battles and watches their progress with interest.... The apologists wonder why the historians do not spring to the defense of the faith when Joseph Smith comes under attack. The apologists want to war with the critics; the historians ask them out to lunch....

The apologists insist that the historians fail to understand what is at stake. The historians for their part question the apologists' polemical writing and special pleading. They think the apologists repel readers with their bellicose style and unwillingness to yield points. Though assembled on the same campus at Brigham Young University and acknowledging each other as brothers and sisters in the gospel, they live in different worlds.

— Richard Lyman Bushman, "A Response to Jan Shipps," Journal of American History 94 (September 2007): 518-19.

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. And it appears now that the sympathies of the current Maxwell Institute leadership in fact lie with Bushman's "historians" rather than "the apologists."

Edited June 22, 2012 by Nevo

[Cobalt-70]

As far as mission statements go, the new one is far, far better than the old one. This is true purely as a matter of managerial theory, even without considering the substance. Mission statements are supposed to be succinct, aspirational, and motivational, not confusing and convoluted, or resembling a laundry list of "stuff we do."

As far as substance is concerned, the new one is right on the money. That is exactly what MI should be about.

[Freedom]

We have to consider that the director was appointed by and reports to a higher authority, and that this higher authority is well aware of what FARMS did in the past, and what it plans to do in the future. We also have to consider that God, ultimately, is in charge of His kingdom. If he deems it necessary to have a strong apologetic arm then it will exist. If not, when perhaps we are kicking against the pricks.

[ERayR]

As far as mission statements go, the new one is far, far better than the old one. This is true purely as a matter of managerial theory, even without considering the substance. Mission statements are supposed to be succinct, aspirational, and motivational, not confusing and convoluted, or resembling a laundry list of "stuff we do."

As far as substance is concerned, the new one is right on the money. That is exactly what MI should be about.

That seems to be unsettled and for now a matter of discussion.

[ERayR]

We have to consider that the director was appointed by and reports to a higher authority, and that this higher authority is well aware of what FARMS did in the past, and what it plans to do in the future. We also have to consider that God, ultimately, is in charge of His kingdom. If he deems it necessary to have a strong apologetic arm then it will exist. If not, when perhaps we are kicking against the pricks.

I think there is something about being .."engaged in a good cause".

[Calm]

I think that Dan's release was not business but personal. The way it was done shows signs of dislike or hate.

I think this analysis does not have any support for it. For one thing, this may not be an uncommon method for Brother Bradford to deal with potentially distasteful interviews. Any reasons why he did it this way without more info are purely speculative.

[Calm]

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. And it appears now that the sympathies of the current Maxwell Institute leadership in fact lie with Bushman's "historians" rather than "the apologists."

This is what I've been speculating myself. As noted by the date, it is a debate over approaches that has been going on for years. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

A purely secular scholarship approach does not have to be "mild" and certainly doesn't have to 'hide' church history or doctrine.

[ERayR]

I think this analysis does not have any support for it. For one thing, this may not be an uncommon method for Brother Bradford to deal with potentially distasteful interviews. Any reasons why he did it this way without more info are purely speculative.

It may be his way but at this level of management you deal with your peers on a face to face level. If you are going to hide from the unpleasant tasks you aren't fit for that level of management.

[Calm]

It may be his way but at this level of management you deal with your peers on a face to face level. If you are going to hide from the unpleasant tasks you aren't fit for that level of management.

I am not disagreeing.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle?

[zerinus]

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

Nemesis

Could you arrange it so we could give negative rep points too?

[Calm]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.html

Something from Dan.

[ERayR]

I am not disagreeing.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle?

Yes I mentioned it in one of my many post today. It is when someone is promoted one step beyond their capacity to perform. It may very well be clearly in evidence in this circumstance.

[Calm]

Yes I mentioned it in one of my many post today.

Ah, missed it, sometimes I inadvertently skip posts that have been added while I am typing up mine. Or other times I just skip lines due to my eyes being tired of reading or jumping ahead or thinking about what I'm thinking more than what I'm reading, etc.

[ERayR]

Ah, missed it, sometimes I inadvertently skip posts that have been added while I am typing up mine. Or other times I just skip lines due to my eyes being tired of reading or jumping ahead or thinking about what I'm thinking more than what I'm reading, etc.

Posting has been fast and furious today and I myself missed some. If you can believe that.

[Aliwe]

Have you heard of the Peter Principle?

Yes, Jesus used it. Promoted Peter to the head of his crew because he was as dumb as a rock. If someone else said to Jesus, "Thank you for letting me be the shepherd of your flock, Lord, obviously you can discern talent when you see it," Jesus couldn't use him. But Peter said, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord," and Jesus knew he could work with him, because he was sensitive to his own shortcomings and humble enough to confess them. Jesus said, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men."

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Yes, Jesus used it. Promoted Peter to the head of his crew because he was as dumb as a rock. If someone else said to Jesus, "Thank you for letting me be the shepherd of your flock, Lord, obviously you can discern talent when you see it," Jesus couldn't use him. But Peter said, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord," and Jesus knew he could work with him, because he was sensitive to his own shortcomings and humble enough to confess them. Jesus said, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men."

:rofl:

Now THAT was funny!!!!!! Thank you...... however......we should at least understand that the entire Peter episode in the Bible is questionable at best....... it is suspected to be a forgery since it is not in many of the earliest Biblical manuscripts........ it's a touchy if not difficult situation. There is no clarity with it right up to today.......

[Teancum]

Mr. Hamblin

This may be a bit premature but what are the chances of Dan and other starting another FARMS like organization on their own again? That is what FARMS was origianally and based on your BLOG post you and most the other board wanted to keep it that way. I say go for it againif that is what you all want. Or will FAIR be the main organ you all use?