The Practical Maxwell Questions Not Being Addressed

[David T]

Aside from the inter-office politics. Aside from levels or lack of professionalism. Aside from whether or not people you don't like find this something to celebrate or to mourn.

Originally (and still) addressed to Will and Bill (and even Dan), I'm going to open my earlier (unaddresed) post up to a thread to ask anyone who views this change as A Great Apostate Win, hoping someone, anyone, will explain this to me:

There are some questions that I think need clarification, especially due to many have actually and truly expressed this has having literally Epic, Church-rending, scripturally prophesied ramifications.

• For those that feel this way, Is your view that the role and right and mission and authority of the NAMI is to call out and label and expose and 'take aim at' Church members as Apostates (using the editorial staff's interpretation of the definition), even though their designated local leaders have chosen not to pursue disciplinary measures?
  

• What are key new 'uncontested slam dunks' that have not been contested, that are still being perpetuated that require and are worth devoting a degree of Scholarship to defeat and 'contest' that is not currently already available or possible at FAIR (or already published in past FARMS publications!), that non-polemical historical research and presentation (such as the Massacre at Mountain Meadows book by Turley et al and Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling) is unable to address?
  

• Without waxing epic or parabolic or in broad general terms, please give specifics, giving topics, names, and examples of how this change will cause the Church to go fundamentally and substantially undefended in the way you have been suggesting, and why you view this as such a huge ginormous victory for Enemies of the Church.
  

I'm sure many of you consider us blind who don't see it, but for the sake of helping the blind to see, I beg of you to condescend to spell it out for us in a, specific practical way.

Please, PLEASE keep the sarcasm and namecalling out of this thread. These questions are based on inferences I've seen throughout, and would like them to be clarified with example.

Edited June 23, 2012 by David T

[Bernard Gui]

This is required reading for those who want to know more...

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=640

Bernard

[awyatt]

Is your view that the role and right and mission and authority of the NAMI is to call out and label and expose and 'take aim at' Church members as Apostates (using the editorial staff's interpretation of the definition), even though their designated local leaders have chosen not to pursue disciplinary measures?

I believe that anyone can do this. Period. It behooves a person, after all, that once warned they should warn their neighbor. In a healthy marketplace of ideas, it is inevitable that another's ideas get addressed, and sometimes very pointedly. (Just look at the other X-thousand messages on this message board and others and you see prima facia evidence that the marketplace of ideas is alive, even if not always well.)

I don't think that NAMI (or anyone else, for that matter), is wise in labeling someone else an apostate. That is an ecclessiastical decision. (And, for the record, I don't think I've ever read in *anything* that FARMS/NAMI has produced that labels someone else an apostate.)

I think that the classic approach of FARMS provided a venue that is now no longer available. Some think that is a good thing. By and large those "some" are constituted of people who are traditionally critical of the Church and the venue FARMS has provided. Only time will tell if it really is a good thing, but I doubt seriously that it is.

As to why local leaders do or don't pursue formal discipline for any given individual, we all see through a glass darkly. If critics think that ecclessiastical leaders having their say is the final word, then perhaps they should stop bringing up the September Six.

-Allen

Edited June 23, 2012 by awyatt

[David T]

I think that the classic approach of FARMS provided a venue that is now no longer available.

Venue for what, exactly, that you don't feel the reformed NAMI will offer? And what would be the detriment you see from the NAMI not providing said venue?

[David Bokovoy]

As one who has published both with FARMS and the Maxwell Institute, I will go on record and share my opinion on this matter.

Speaking personally, over the years, I've especially felt the loss of FARMS' Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as edited by Stephen Ricks, and John Sorenson. I'll confess that this has been somewhat of a personal loss for me, in the sense that the scholarship and articles it originally published were what inspired me to pursue my graduate work in the first place and by which I've patterned my own writings, including that little book I put together several years ago with Tvedtnes.

By design, the current Maxwell journal that has taken its place is both non-academic and non-specialized. I hate to make this sound personal, but over the years, those in charge of the journal have solicited articles from me, only to turn them down because they were not written for an "early morning seminary teacher audience." In sharing this information, I'm not trying to be critical, because as a professional religious instructor myself, I sincerely appreciate what they're trying to accomplish. But in my estimation, this transition has left a serious void.

I spoke with Dan about this several years ago, and he shared with me that he, Lou, and George agreed with my assessment, which is why they were beginning to place Journal of Book of Mormon Studies type articles in the Review. This was wonderful while it lasted, but clearly now this will no longer take place, since as I understand it, the Review will be devoted to another purpose entirely.

I would also like to state that I am proud of the two articles I published in the Review. One was an apologetic response to the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon DVD, and the other a polite scholarly exchange with biblical scholar Michael Heiser.

Over the years, I have become less and less interested in traditional apologetics, and because of my wiliness to opening engage scholarly issues in my field that present challenges to various issues connected with the Restoration, I have received my own "wounds," from "friendly fire," the details of which, I have no intention of discussing in public. I will state, however, without trying to be too critical, that I have little confidence in the general abilities of BYU's new direction personnel (speaking as a whole, not of individuals, many of whom if given the chance are more than capable) to seriously engage academic issues pertaining to the Book of Mormon, etc.

This is certainly not the objective of BYU's Religious Education. In fact, given the department's general opposition to scholarship, as well as the general lack of personnel trained in these various fields, I have a hard time seeing how this new direction will take place at BYU in terms of scholarly observations on the Bible, Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. While the MI will hopefully make some important contributions in the future to Mormon studies, sadly, I suspect that most of the quality work in these areas will take place in independent spheres outside of BYU.

Finally, I will also go on record as stating that I am proud to be both a student, and a friend of Daniel Peterson. Both he and his work have had a tremendous impact upon my life, and I believe that over the years, Dan has made outstanding contributions to Mormon studies. In fact, some of my favorite observations that have been made regarding the Book of Mormon have been Dan's.

[CV75]

There are some questions that I think need clarification

I am the least qualified to discuss this matter, ad am finding it difficult to keep up with the threads, so at the risk of asking stupid questions (and I’m not sure which of the threads I should post these, so I just picked the one that began most recently--please feel free to tell me to post them on a more pertinent thread.):

I respect the dedicated professional apologists that post on this board, and I appreciate their condescension to carry our discussions in this kind of public format. For this reason I always wondered what BYU or MI must think of their avatars and their more casual posts and whether these would be a great organizational if not professional liability. Having been in another profession, I cannot see getting away doing the same type of thing without being spoken with about it by superiors. Could the reason for the changes have something to do with this?

I have great empathy for anyone who has been dismissed without clear explanation and warning. Having been on both sides of this kind of house-cleaning, sometimes the most powerful people are most inept at firing people well. Others cannot read the tea-leaves of getting fired. Is this part of what is going on?

It is interesting that MI seems to be taking a stance that it doesn’t have to explain or defend anything about the doctrines or truthfulness of the Church. Is this because it is treating its studies on a par with how BYU treats evolution and other sciences? Is it because it views history and texts as more of a science than they once were, and are just as effective (or not) in arriving at spiritual truth? Is one strategy that the powers that be have gradually installed change agents (or installed bureaucrats / managers that would act so as to induce desired change) accordingly? With the “Mormon Moment”, is it possible that things weren’t changing quickly enough?

Maybe these have been addressed; if so, please provide a link. Thank you,

[Brant Gardner]

By design, the current Maxwell journal that has taken its place is both non-academic and non-specialized. I hate to make this sound personal, but over the years, those in charge of the journal have solicited articles from me, only to turn them down because they were not written for an "early morning seminary teacher audience." In sharing this information, I'm not trying to be critical, because as a professional religious instructor myself, I sincerely appreciate what they're trying to accomplish. But in my estimation, this transition has left a serious void.

That has been my impression, without as much evidence as you have. My own work on the Book of Mormon springs directly from that of John Sorenson and has been bolstered by the kind of work that was done earlier in FARMS existence (and a needed not to Faulconer's book on how to study the scriptures, printed under FARMS). Perhaps because I am so completely focused on the Book of Mormon, I have noticed that the Maxwell Institute's production of really new work on the Book of Mormon has slowed to a trickle.

It is unfortunate that the timing of this change at the Maxwell Institute follows the issue of an article discussion John Dehlin. That has allowed the false impression that the issues surrounding that article caused the current change. Whatever influence it may or may not have had, it cannot be causative of the current change. It has been a change in process for way too long.

While I hold out hope that there will be a place for cutting edge scholarship on the Book of Mormon in the new direction of the Maxwell Institute, the evidence of past redirected efforts is not encouraging.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It's also interesting to me that Bradford indicates a desire for taking the studies in a more academic and secular direction? I suspect, rather seriously strongly, that the "secular" arrangement of any studies in the scriptures will not be adequately addressing the available scholarship on the Bible from the secular end of things. The reason? Because it really does undermine our Mormon assumptions about what we think we know what the Bible is and is all about. The secular studies have amassed an absolutely amazing amount of materials that show our Mormon view of the Bible just ain't realistic. It will undermine the what of our testimony concerning the Bible as the church teaches. It will be fascinating to see if the Institution really does give actual secular information, logic and analysis of evidence about the Bible, or will it simply tow the General Conference line of generalities and faith promoting testimonies? The secular side of things concerning the Bible will be a total wash if they try to Mormonize the information as has been done in the past. It is a VERY touchy subject that LDS scholars have, to be quite honest about it, shied completely away from. The very newest approach to the Apostle Paul for instance, Thomas Wayment, "From Persecutor to Apostle, A Biography of Paul," Deseret Book, 2006 is simply atrociously ridiculous when it comes to understanding Paul in context. Wayment Mormonizes Paul to an extreme I have not seen in decades.......secular academic? It is a complete embarrassment. But......he certainly strengthens the faith of the faithful by attempting to show that Paul really was just a very early Mormon in disguise! I was appalled no end that in his forward he claims to have read absolutely everything from the scholars on Paul, and then used absolutely nothing.....er, except the church materials. He wanted to write the very best book on Paul, and all he did was bore his testimony and twisted context to make Paul appear very astonishingly different than any secular study I have ever read. If THIS is going to be the academia coming out of BYU/MI with an emphasis on secular....... they ought to save themselves an absolute ton of embarrassment, fold up the cards and tables, shut off the lights, and just go home. The scholars will absolutely decimate the Mormon scholars if they attempt to Mormonize the secular as Wayment has done, and as he did in "The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles," Deseret Book, 2010. We need far and away more honesty and more rigor when dealing with the Bible than we Mormons ever have done. And I have my very serious doubts it will be done. Just sayin.........

[Tacenda]

It's also interesting to me that Bradford indicates a desire for taking the studies in a more academic and secular direction? I suspect, rather seriously strongly, that the "secular" arrangement of any studies in the scriptures will not be adequately addressing the available scholarship on the Bible from the secular end of things. The reason? Because it really does undermine our Mormon assumptions about what we think we know what the Bible is and is all about. The secular studies have amassed an absolutely amazing amount of materials that show our Mormon view of the Bible just ain't realistic. It will undermine the what of our testimony concerning the Bible as the church teaches. It will be fascinating to see if the Institution really does give actual secular information, logic and analysis of evidence about the Bible, or will it simply tow the General Conference line of generalities and faith promoting testimonies? The secular side of things concerning the Bible will be a total wash if they try to Mormonize the information as has been done in the past. It is a VERY touchy subject that LDS scholars have, to be quite honest about it, shied completely away from. The very newest approach to the Apostle Paul for instance, Thomas Wayment, "From Persecutor to Apostle, A Biography of Paul," Deseret Book, 2006 is simply atrociously ridiculous when it comes to understanding Paul in context. Wayment Mormonizes Paul to an extreme I have not seen in decades.......secular academic? It is a complete embarrassment. But......he certainly strengthens the faith of the faithful by attempting to show that Paul really was just a very early Mormon in disguise! I was appalled no end that in his forward he claims to have read absolutely everything from the scholars on Paul, and then used absolutely nothing.....er, except the church materials. He wanted to write the very best book on Paul, and all he did was bore his testimony and twisted context to make Paul appear very astonishingly different than any secular study I have ever read. If THIS is going to be the academia coming out of BYU/MI with an emphasis on secular....... they ought to save themselves an absolute ton of embarrassment, fold up the cards and tables, shut off the lights, and just go home. The scholars will absolutely decimate the Mormon scholars if they attempt to Mormonize the secular as Wayment has done, and as he did in "The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles," Deseret Book, 2010. We need far and away more honesty and more rigor when dealing with the Bible than we Mormons ever have done. And I have my very serious doubts it will be done. Just sayin.........

Why don't we devote more class time to study the bible, verse by verse and maybe take two or three years on it or as long as it takes instead of only studying it every 3 or 4 years? And give the same time to the BOM. It would help me with studying b/c I'm pretty lame at deciphering what so much of it means. Anyone care to comment? Or would this derail the topic?

[David T]

Why don't we devote more class time to study the bible, verse by verse and maybe take two or three years on it or as long as it takes instead of only studying it every 3 or 4 years? And give the same time to the BOM. It would help me with studying b/c I'm pretty lame at deciphering what so much of it means. Anyone care to comment? Or would this derail the topic?

That would derail.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Why don't we devote more class time to study the bible, verse by verse and maybe take two or three years on it or as long as it takes instead of only studying it every 3 or 4 years? And give the same time to the BOM. It would help me with studying b/c I'm pretty lame at deciphering what so much of it means. Anyone care to comment? Or would this derail the topic?

Perhaps we can start some threads and do this........

[mfbukowski]

....and why you view this as such a huge ginormous victory for Enemies of the Church.

The leaks, my dear, THE LEAKS! Clearly calculated by someone in the new administration to be personal attacks on Dr Peterson.

How can you NOT see that as a victory for the Enemies of the Church?????????????

[David T]

It's also interesting to me that Bradford indicates a desire for taking the studies in a more academic and secular direction? I suspect, rather seriously strongly, that the "secular" arrangement of any studies in the scriptures will not be adequately addressing the available scholarship on the Bible from the secular end of things. The reason? Because it really does undermine our Mormon assumptions about what we think we know what the Bible is and is all about. The secular studies have amassed an absolutely amazing amount of materials that show our Mormon view of the Bible just ain't realistic. It will undermine the what of our testimony concerning the Bible as the church teaches. It will be fascinating to see if the Institution really does give actual secular information, logic and analysis of evidence about the Bible, or will it simply tow the General Conference line of generalities and faith promoting testimonies? The secular side of things concerning the Bible will be a total wash if they try to Mormonize the information as has been done in the past. It is a VERY touchy subject that LDS scholars have, to be quite honest about it, shied completely away from. The very newest approach to the Apostle Paul for instance, Thomas Wayment, "From Persecutor to Apostle, A Biography of Paul," Deseret Book, 2006 is simply atrociously ridiculous when it comes to understanding Paul in context. Wayment Mormonizes Paul to an extreme I have not seen in decades.......secular academic? It is a complete embarrassment. But......he certainly strengthens the faith of the faithful by attempting to show that Paul really was just a very early Mormon in disguise! I was appalled no end that in his forward he claims to have read absolutely everything from the scholars on Paul, and then used absolutely nothing.....er, except the church materials. He wanted to write the very best book on Paul, and all he did was bore his testimony and twisted context to make Paul appear very astonishingly different than any secular study I have ever read. If THIS is going to be the academia coming out of BYU/MI with an emphasis on secular....... they ought to save themselves an absolute ton of embarrassment, fold up the cards and tables, shut off the lights, and just go home. The scholars will absolutely decimate the Mormon scholars if they attempt to Mormonize the secular as Wayment has done, and as he did in "The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles," Deseret Book, 2010. We need far and away more honesty and more rigor when dealing with the Bible than we Mormons ever have done. And I have my very serious doubts it will be done. Just sayin.........

While I agree with your position on the Bible, from my experience, (and I certainly agree that I may be off), FARMS has traditionally approached the Bible with fairly safe highly conservative approaches (with admittedly some notable exceptions). Are you expressing the fear that this is something that will simply continue from its traditional record, and now be more of a problem because of the new specifically stated scholastic/secular approach, or something entirely new you fear will go into overdrive?

[David T]

The leaks, my dear, THE LEAKS! Clearly calculated by someone in the new administration to be personal attacks on Dr Peterson.

How can you NOT see that as a victory for the Enemies of the Church?????????????

In the OP, I specifically noted behind-the-scenes material aside, and hoped to focus on the actual theoretical content of the publications-to-be.

[mfbukowski]

In the OP, I specifically noted behind-the-scenes material aside, and hoped to focus on the actual theoretical content of the publications-to-be.

Edit:

It's your thread and your rules!

Edited June 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Aliwe]

Why don't we devote more class time to study the bible, verse by verse and maybe take two or three years on it or as long as it takes instead of only studying it every 3 or 4 years? And give the same time to the BOM. It would help me with studying b/c I'm pretty lame at deciphering what so much of it means. Anyone care to comment? Or would this derail the topic?

I'm not even Mormon, Tacenda, and I am intensely studying both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. I think I'm a pretty smart cookie, and Internet dialogue with Mormons makes me smarter. It just takes time.

[Tacenda]

I'm not even Mormon, Tacenda, and I am intensely studying both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. I think I'm a pretty smart cookie, and Internet dialogue with Mormons makes me smarter. It just takes time.

I've actually thought about joining a bible study class, when I mentioned it to another member, they about had a heart attack. I guess b/c the teachings in the churches would be so differently held.

[mfbukowski]

Aside from the inter-office politics. Aside from levels or lack of professionalism. Aside from whether or not people you don't like find this something to celebrate or to mourn.

I see those as indeed THE issue here which is a victory for the enemies of the church- but if you really don't want those things discussed that is your business, but for me that was the central issue.

One might think that showing that in the administration of the new regime there were those who were working with the other side just MIGHT be a victory for anti-Mormons, but heck, what do I know?

[David T]

I see those as indeed THE issue here which is a victory for the enemies of the church- but if you really don't want those things discussed that is your business, but for me that was the central issue.

One might think that showing that in the administration of the new regime there were those who were working with the other side just MIGHT be a victory for anti-Mormons, but heck, what do I know?

My point is, those aspects are being discussed in every other thread on this Event. I'd like to separate this from those topics as someone interested in the content of the Review, and the other periodicals in question. I want to know what this practically means, content wise, and why the perceived change in content is viewed as a Victory for the Enemies.

Edited June 24, 2012 by David T

[Kerry A. Shirts]

While I agree with your position on the Bible, from my experience, (and I certainly agree that I may be off), FARMS has traditionally approached the Bible with fairly safe highly conservative approaches (with admittedly some notable exceptions). Are you expressing the fear that this is something that will simply continue from its traditional record, and now be more of a problem because of the new specifically stated scholastic/secular approach, or something entirely new you fear will go into overdrive?

Well, let me see if I can explain it clearly.........I probably can't...........it's my fault........ o.k., see, here is what I see and understand, having some inside dope on how the Church Education System has worked through the years, from people who have actually been employed in it and the atrocious politics they have encountered, and an inside track on who writes church manuals for our meetings, etc (that part has been out now since Daniel C. Peterson's very honest, forthright, and delightful interview with Witherspoon on the church manuals), if you NOW try to gain admiration and acceptance of the world, then you MUST do it THEIR way, not OURS. Hugh Nibley warned us about this decades ago, as BYU was offering classes that was impossible and Klaus Baer called him on it, and he had to do some very quick thinking and damage control over the insipid silliness and arrogance of the offerings BYU was claiming to be able to teach.

The secular deals with evidence and attempts to come to logical conclusions based on THAT EVIDENCE......it NEVER resorts to spiritual feelings or testimony of what one has been told is THE truth of God. The secular deals with evidence NOT faith. COnclusion must come from the evidence, not conclusions already believed in simply supported by a selective use and analysis of evidence that ONLY CONFIRMS FAITH as our Church Education System does things. The secular will crucify that approach, and in no other field will it crucify it so powerfully or miserably than in the Biblical Studies. I know how that operates I have umpteen thousands of articles from the Bible scholars and their analysis and rigorous use of ALL relevant languages to come to an understanding. We cannot even begin to climb into the arena with them yet, but we already think we have the right answers! Our problem, unfortunately is that we are taught what to think, not how to think in our church. This is not a criticism, it is an observation. We are then told specifically WHICH elements are to be in a testimony of the truth, and are expressly encouraged to do everything in or power to find the truthfulness of that in or testimonies. This is precisely why when I have tried to share some of the fascinating, interesting, intriguing evidences and scholarship on the Bible by the actual experts and scholars, I am so powerfully lambasted as being an apostate, or falling away from the Spirit and Heavenly Father is VERY displeased with me, etc. and etc. Because we are not used to seeing the evidences that exist for one thing, and have never even heard of the actual scholarship, because the church has kept us so doggone busy in telling us what to think from ITS OWN INTERPRETATION ***ALONE*** ALL ELSE is lesser than in truth. THAT is the assumption, and the WHAT of our thinking. I know from personal experience, and I will be more than happy to demonstrate it on these boards, and you will see the saints flying to pieces like glass and condemning me for simply sharing the secular. And this is what Bradford wants to lean toward? He CANNOT teach what the church says or come to the conclusions that support the church if he goes the secular way.

Oh sure, there are some things that appear to match our Mormon ideas in the secular biblical scholarship, but on the whole? Nowhere close. That, to me, is the problem Bradford is heading into. And......I can predict here and now (you DID HEAR IT HERE FIRST) that he will get into nothing but trouble with either the brethren for teaching things NOT APPROPRIATE for Mormons (i.e., coming to different conclusions than what we have been taught), or with the world for being just another silly Mormon attempt at gaining respectability but Mormonizing the Bible, which they will howl for blood for doing.

[MitoticSlime]

Very interesting, Kerry. A lot of food for thought there. Thanks for sharing.

[ERayR]

I'm not even Mormon, Tacenda, and I am intensely studying both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. I think I'm a pretty smart cookie, and Internet dialogue with Mormons makes me smarter. It just takes time.

Please be careful not to break your arm.

[ERayR]

I see those as indeed THE issue here which is a victory for the enemies of the church- but if you really don't want those things discussed that is your business, but for me that was the central issue.

One might think that showing that in the administration of the new regime there were those who were working with the other side just MIGHT be a victory for anti-Mormons, but heck, what do I know?

One does wonder and shake their head at times don't they? Why is ir so hard for some to connect the dots? To paraphrase - the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[ERayR]

My point is, those aspects are being discussed in every other thread on this Event. I'd like to separate this from those topics as someone interested in the content of the Review, and the other periodicals in question. I want to know what this practically means, content wise, and why the perceived change in content is viewed as a Victory for the Enemies.

The perceived changes is that there will be fewer quality, precise, apologetic reports available to help those of us in something other than research.

[mapman]

From what I've tried to piece together from all the different posts, it seems that people have concluded that what are considered liberal or unorthodox Mormons, typified by John Dehlin, have taken control of the MI, which for them is seen as a bad thing as they are apostates and wolves in sheep's clothing and will pander to anti-Mormons in the publications. I could be way off here, so if anyone believes this I would appreciate it if they would confirm that this is their view. I don't think we will have a useful discussion unless we are all clear about what we think the significance is of the different approach the MI has decided to take in their publications.

Edited June 24, 2012 by mapman