What The Maxwell Institute Controversy Is Really About

[why me]

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that no one is accountable to the classic FARMS board and donors considering how FARMS was added to the BYU family?

If this was done with kindness and empathy toward dan, I don't think that there would be a problem. Journals can have a policy change and a new direction and of course, they will lose and gain subscribers and lose and gain benefactors.

But the way this was done is a reminder what happens to middle management of a company. Email sent, managers belongings boxed, and out he or she goes without a thank you. Cold, callous, cruel and indecent are some of the words that can be used to describe this happening with Dan.

[Calm]

I think that you are missin the boat here. It is not that dan was fired. It was how it was done.

I think there are two (at least) distinct problems here. One is the why and the other is the how. Some appear to be trying to justify or minimize the 'how' by pointing out the why (changing MI to a secular academic viewpoint) is a worthwhile goal.

I think the issues should be dealt with separately, especially since it is relatively easy to address the how and much more complicated to address the 'why'.

[wenglund]

Hi Dr. Hamblin,

You repeatedly asked,

If the University did not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?

You then said paranthetically,

It isn't another story; it's the answer to your question which is the crux of the issue.

BYU deliberately chose their directors for the Institute. You think Bradford really took it upon himself to radically change the direction of the Institute? The directors report to the leaders of BYU who appointed them. How do you know that in these various decisions, Bradford wasn’t merely following orders? There is no indication that BYU was surprised by this. They didn’t hesitate to stick by Bradford and confirm that these changes were happening.

I'm not defending Bradford's administration skills and the way the change in direction has taken place. Obviously he could have better handled how this happened. But Bradford's responsibilities are to the people he reports to--not the classic-FARMS board and donors.

I am fascinated by how some critics are not only intent on sticking their nose in the business of their opponents, but presume to know more about the organizations of their opponents than those intimately involved in and long associated with the organisations. Fun stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

I am fascinated by how some critics are not only intent on sticking their nose in the business of their opponents, but presume to know more about the organizations of their opponents than those intimately involved in and long associated with the organisations. Fun stuff.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If Hambin didn't want the public putting its nose into this business, he shouldn't have made a detailed blog post about it and brought it to the attention of a discussion board where critics are invited.

All I'm doing here is defending the Church, BYU, and the Maxwell Institute. Should people be prohibited from defending the church when the people criticizing it are the mopologists?

[David T]

I took my questions to a new thread, because they weren't being addressed, and I do feel they go to the heart of explaining why we should or should not be worried about this.

[jwhitlock]

All I'm doing here is defending the Church, BYU, and the Maxwell Institute. Should people be prohibited from defending the church when the people criticizing it are the mopologists?

Unbelievable. Talk about twisting things around.

Let's make it very clear what you're really doing. You're trying to redefine Dan's canning by Bradford, and Bradford's myopic vision of what the MI should be as an official change of direction by the Church - something that's been based on the most tenuous of assumptions - that panders to our enemies. You're then placing yourself in the role of the now-redefined-church defender.

This simply doesn't bear any relationship to reality whatsoever.

[ERayR]

I took my questions to a new thread, because they weren't being addressed, and I do feel they go to the heart of explaining why we should or should not be worried about this.

As Calmoriah pointed out above this has two facets, the how and the why. I agree with you on the why but the how of it has me troubled.

[David T]

As Calmoriah pointed out above this has two facets, the how and the why. I agree with you on the why but the how of it has me troubled.

My concern is that the politics of this are what is getting discussed, in connection with the Broad Vision of Doom and Gloom. I haven't seen any explanations of how the change would practically make things less valuable. My specific questions in this and that thread are to try to help me to see what they see.

[awyatt]

This did not happen in a vacuum.

CFR, please.

[Calm]

Why are you so threatened by this?

Comments like this come across as more manipulative than insightful, imo.

[wenglund]

If Hambin didn't want the public putting its nose into this business, he shouldn't have made a detailed blog post about it and brought it to the attention of a discussion board where critics are invited.

My fascination wasn't with the issue being made public (which occured to a considerable extent prior to Hamblin's blog entry), but with the extent of some to stick their noses so much further into this business of those they oppose. I thought I made that clear. But, apparantly I failed in your case.

All I'm doing here is defending the Church, BYU, and the Maxwell Institute.

That is an fascinaty way to describe your sticking your critical nose into the business of your opponents and prsuming, from your position of relative ignorance, to lecture someone who knows what he is talking about. LOL

Should people be prohibited from defending the church when the people criticizing it are the mopologists?

Your question presuppose things things diametrically opposite of my view of what has been happening and your participation therein. You are, of course, entilted to you odd view of things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[Edit: Hrrm, I missed quite a few responses while I was typing. This post belongs rather earlier in the thread; my apologies.]

Folks, I'm as bummed as anyone about DCP's dismissal (especially in this very unprofessional manner), but can we maybe ease off on the pseudo-apocalyptic prooftexting? This stuff has nothing to do with apostasies in high places, and the appropriation of scriptural rhetoric here, as if this was all part of some fulfilled prophecy, is fairly embarrassing.

On the one hand, I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the hundreds of independent scholars published under the NAMI umbrella as engaging in unfair polemics; while there have, of course, been authors and papers I disagreed with immensely, the overall tone has not been the wretchedly monolithic hive of scum and villainy that some of the critics have tried to portray it as. John Dehlin, for instance, has made it abundantly clear that he hasn't even read very much of the material available at NAMI (compare his interview with Michael Coe and his interview with Brant Gardner for a vivid demonstration of his unfamiliarity with apologetic works). Letting folks like Dehlin define the paradigm, as if they are not just as much to blame for the unfair war of words being waged, is not fair.

On the other hand, to portray this as a conspiratorial secret-combination of Prophetic importance attempting to destroy the church from inside out is just as unfair.

I didn't see the need for massive changes in tone at the NAMI, and from what I can see, Bradford acted very unprofessionally to DCP. I'm pretty distressed at how this went down. Why would it have been so hard to clean up the occasional bits of acrimonious tone without losing people who have contributed as much as DCP has? It's just an all-around mess.

Yet individual people at the NAMI have taken some unfair potshots at critics over the years, and assigned some unfair labels to people. At the same time, let's not forget that critics have not been shy about taking extremely unfair potshots at "apologists" too; to characterize anything in the NAMI as approaching the level of the Jack Chicks and Ed Deckers of the world is grossly unfair, and to characterize all critics as being at the level of Jack Chick is also unfair. To accuse everyone who disagrees with individual apologists as being enemies of the Church is unfair; for self-declared defenders of the faith to squelch viewpoints which are "too liberal" or "too conservative" or "too rigidly orthodox" or "too unorthodox" is unfair; to label scholars as dastardly "mopologists" sycophantically defending their cult leaders is also unfair. There is more than enough blame to go around on either side.

But I, for one, am simply not interested in calculating and quantifying and graphing and tallying up the exact degree to the hundredth decimal point to which each "side" has sinned. The point is: there are good people on both "sides" doing right as they see it, and no one is immune from being an inconsiderate jerk. Both sides have many unfairnesses they can point to in order to "justify" acting unfairly in return; meanwhile, because each side is tearing each other down for not being perfect passionless machines who never sin, no one ends up being the bigger man.

Let's remember that contention itself, regardless of how well-justified, is of the adversary. We should all maybe take a day off and get some fresh air. This is not a civil war. This is not us-against-them. We're all in this together; let's get over ourselves if we can. The board wars are extremely unhealthy, regardless of which "side" we are on. I've had entire threads both here and on the other board devoted to how awful and stupid a person I am (usually for mutually-exclusive reasons), and it's really not much fun. I've also said mean things which I regret to other people, both LDS and non, which was probably not much fun for them. How is any of this constructive?

"All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: It is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get [to our Heavenly Parents], the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. […] If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another." -- Joseph Smith

Edited June 23, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Evangeline]

I applaud Bill, Dan, and others for speaking out on this. It takes a particular amount of courage for Dan to do so.

Trying to get along with wolves only gets you eaten in the end.

I have often appreciated that Dan has been willing to get in the trenches and address the difficult issues in the church head-on with us "regular" folk. He obviously doesn't need to do that, but I have seen it as a great strength of character. He could choose to stay aloof in his scholarly tower, but I've read enough of his writings to know that he cares too much to do that. I've never met him in person, he doesn't know me from Adam (or Eve ), but I feel like he's a good friend somehow. We, the people, have lots of questions. The church hierarchy understandably should maintain a distance from the fray because they have a different purpose, but without people like Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin to provide perspectives other than those from less-than-ideal sources and do it in accessible places like this board, perhaps some would crumble and fall.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Evangeline

[ERayR]

My concern is that the politics of this are what is getting discussed, in connection with the Broad Vision of Doom and Gloom. I haven't seen any explanations of how the change would practically make things less valuable. My specific questions in this and that thread are to try to help me to see what they see.

I don't know if I can express my thoughts so they might be coherent but here is a try. The politics are being discussed because it very well may be that politics may be at the root of it. By that I mean different viewpoints lobbying for supremacy. This, to some, may be irrelevant. To me it isn't. As I see the sides as now constituted one side is on the wall defending against the encroachment of the critics and anti-Mormon rhetoric. They have helped me and others in our understanding The Book of Mormon and other Issues. The other side does not want to stand on the wall because at times it is hard bloody work. The critics and anti-Mormon's are happy to get the defenders off the wall because the field then becomes theirs.

[Calm]

The other side does not want to stand on the wall because at times it is hard bloody work.

I think there is also the opinion that standing on the wall creates a target and if there is no target, there will be no (or less) attacking.

[ERayR]

I think there is also the opinion that standing on the wall creates a target and if there is no target, there will be no (or less) attacking.

IMNSHO Fools thinking.

[alter idem]

Dehlin started a thread here about how he was mistreated.... I din't like Dehlin using this a his forum to air dirty laundry

Does anyone know how John Dehlin found out about the 100 page article which was being written?--I never read his posts.

(I"m wondering if the same person who leaked Bradford's email could have told Dehlin about the article. )

[Tacenda]

I have often appreciated that Dan has been willing to get in the trenches and address the difficult issues in the church head-on with us "regular" folk. He obviously doesn't need to do that, but I have seen it as a great strength of character. He could choose to stay aloof in his scholarly tower, but I've read enough of his writings to know that he cares too much to do that. I've never met him in person, he doesn't know me from Adam (or Eve ), but I feel like he's a good friend somehow. We, the people, have lots of questions. The church hierarchy understandably should maintain a distance from the fray because they have a different purpose, but without people like Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin to provide perspectives other than those from less-than-ideal sources and do it in accessible places like this board, perhaps some would crumble and fall.

In my humble opinion this is the reason that the higher ups, whomever that might be, is squelching the Petersons and the Hamblins. They don't want members losing their testimonies after reading apologetics for it. Like myself, I learned so much more history by reading apologetics and very disturbing things to boot. I feel one day Fairlds will be a thing of the past because it deals with all the issues upfront. With a click of the mouse. Things no one would be privvy too had they not went to Fair.

[wenglund]

[Edit: Hrrm, I missed quite a few responses while I was typing. This post belongs rather earlier in the thread; my apologies.]

Folks, I'm as bummed as anyone about DCP's dismissal (especially in this very unprofessional manner), but can we maybe ease off on the pseudo-apocalyptic prooftexting? This stuff has nothing to do with apostasies in high places, and the appropriation of scriptural rhetoric here, as if this was all part of some fulfilled prophecy, is fairly embarrassing.

On the one hand, I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the hundreds of independent scholars published under the NAMI umbrella as engaging in unfair polemics; while there have, of course, been authors and papers I disagreed with immensely, the overall tone has not been the wretchedly monolithic hive of scum and villainy that some of the critics have tried to portray it as. John Dehlin, for instance, has made it abundantly clear that he hasn't even read very much of the material available at NAMI (compare his interview with Michael Coe and his interview with Brant Gardner for a vivid demonstration of his unfamiliarity with apologetic works). Letting folks like Dehlin define the paradigm, as if they are not just as much to blame for the unfair war of words being waged, is not fair.

On the other hand, to portray this as a conspiratorial secret-combination of Prophetic importance attempting to destroy the church from inside out is just as unfair.

I didn't see the need for massive changes in tone at the NAMI, and from what I can see, Bradford acted very unprofessionally to DCP. I'm pretty distressed at how this went down. Why would it have been so hard to clean up the occasional bits of acrimonious tone without losing people who have contributed as much as DCP has? It's just an all-around mess.

Yet individual people at the NAMI have taken some unfair potshots at critics over the years, and assigned some unfair labels to people. At the same time, let's not forget that critics have not been shy about taking extremely unfair potshots at "apologists" too; to characterize anything in the NAMI as approaching the level of the Jack Chicks and Ed Deckers of the world is grossly unfair, and to characterize all critics as being at the level of Jack Chick is also unfair. To accuse everyone who disagrees with individual apologists as being enemies of the Church is unfair; for self-declared defenders of the faith to squelch viewpoints which are "too liberal" or "too conservative" or "too rigidly orthodox" or "too unorthodox" is unfair; to label scholars as dastardly "mopologists" sycophantically defending their cult leaders is also unfair. There is more than enough blame to go around on either side.

But I, for one, am simply not interested in calculating and quantifying and graphing and tallying up the exact degree to the hundredth decimal point to which each "side" has sinned. The point is: there are good people on both "sides" doing right as they see it, and no one is immune from being an inconsiderate jerk. Both sides have many unfairnesses they can point to in order to "justify" acting unfairly in return; meanwhile, because each side is tearing each other down for not being perfect passionless machines who never sin, no one ends up being the bigger man.

Let's remember that contention itself, regardless of how well-justified, is of the adversary. We should all maybe take a day off and get some fresh air. This is not a civil war. This is not us-against-them. We're all in this together; let's get over ourselves if we can. The board wars are extremely unhealthy, regardless of which "side" we are on. I've had entire threads both here and on the other board devoted to how awful and stupid a person I am (usually for mutually-exclusive reasons), and it's really not much fun. I've also said mean things which I regret to other people, both LDS and non, which was probably not much fun for them. How is any of this constructive?

"All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: It is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get [to our Heavenly Parents], the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. […] If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another." -- Joseph Smith

Wonderful advice, even though it struck me as ironically a bit overly reactive.

I find it healthy to let off a little steam at times and to passionatly express ones views. The taste of chicken can be improved with spices. In other words, messyness and agitation isn't always a bad thing, and may help us feel human and alive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Does anyone know how John Dehlin found out about the 100 page article which was being written?--I never read his posts.

(I"m wondering if the same person who leaked Bradford's email could have told Dehlin about the article. )

IIRC (it's in the thread I linked to somewhere in these current threads), someone at MI told a friend of Dehlin's that there was going to be a piece on Dehlin, that friend passed on the info to Dehlin.

From: John Dehlin....

Date: March 26, 2012 12:07:10 AM EDT

To: XXXXXX

Cc: "Daniel C. Peterson" xxxx Richard Bushman xxxxx, Terryl Givens xxxxx, <xxxxxx

Subject: Potential Hit Piece from the Maxwell Institute

Elder XXXXX (cc'ing Daniel Peterson, Phil Barlow, Richard Bushman, Hans Mattsson and Terryl Givens),

I just received the following email from a friend and wanted to let you all know about it:

Quote

Hi, John. I don't want to get in the middle of any drama, and especially don't want to get any started up, but I did think you deserve a heads up, in case you are not already aware: I spoke with a friend (who also happens to be one of your Facebook Friends) who works at the Maxwell Institute today, and he mentioned that some of the other guys there are working on publishing something about you that I imagine will be something of a hit piece. You may already be aware of it, and maybe aren't too concerned what a paranoid ultra-conservative apologetic group was to say anyway. My friend did say that he will be attempting to dissuade them over the next few days from putting out the piece. Hopefully he will be successful and the drama will be avoided completely.

Edited June 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Evangeline]

I feel one day Fairlds will be a thing of the past because it deals with all the issues upfront. With a click of the mouse. Things no one would be privvy too had they not went to Fair.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is correct. Many are privy to these issues long before they find FAIR.

[BCSpace]

Why don't the "classic" FARMS people, especially if they still can command some outside funding, re-start the old organization? I realize being employed by BYU as some of them seem to be could still be problematic, but perhaps they could put a controlling directorship in the hands of someone they trust and indpendent of BYU and still retain editorial control?

Perhaps they could just fold back into FAIR and SHIELDS?

[Calm]

Unfortunately, I don't think this is correct. Many are privy to these issues long before they find FAIR.

FAIR members have done some original research (such as on plural marriage) but for the most part, we have just collected what has been written elsewhere and combined it in a coherent and precise manner (hopefully) for one stop shopping.

[why me]

I think there are two (at least) distinct problems here. One is the why and the other is the how. Some appear to be trying to justify or minimize the 'how' by pointing out the why (changing MI to a secular academic viewpoint) is a worthwhile goal.

I think the issues should be dealt with separately, especially since it is relatively easy to address the how and much more complicated to address the 'why'.

The how is easy: It is done and over with. And we know the details. The why is perhaps a little more complicated because we do not have all the details and who was behind it besides Bradford. I do believe that we will find the answers in time. However the how is a big issue for a church institution that handled it in a very unkind way. The question of why it was done the way it was done is important. And I do think that those responsible for the email sacking need to be disciplined. Not by church leaders but by BYU authorities.

[BCSpace]

IIRC (it's in the thread I linked to somewhere in these current threads), someone at MI told a friend of Dehlin's that there was going to be a piece on Dehlin, that friend passed on the info to Dehlin.

Dehlin has a sympathetic GA and that is probably Oaks (to whom he reported some nefarious goings on in his mission years ago) or Jensen. The Church is trying to take a low low profile on these issues, at least until the Romney campaign/presidency is over so, as I've said before, the order of the day is wheat with the tares. The best way to combat Dehlin is to not attack him personally but match him point by point with some of the good work FAIR et. al. has done and will continue to do, as well as with LDS doctrine which is often the best apologetic, while those of use who can quietly move cards in a direction that will marginalize and eventually oust him from the Church. Being an apostate, as most in leadership (and anyone else with half a brain) know he is, he may hang himself.