A Successor To The Maxwell Institute: It'S Time To Start Working On It

[William Schryver]

Here's the thing, ringringring.

The problem is not that Bradford wants to do things differently; the problem is that he wants to do different things.

Here is a parable.

Once there was a city that had no fire department. A group of public-spirited citizens banded together, bought a good second-hand fire appliance, began training together, and pretty soon had a rather good working volunteer fire brigade.

There was in that same city a loosely affiliated group of semi-professional arsonists. Naturally, they were angered by the appearance of the volunteer firefighters. They began opposing its activities, muttering loudly that the fire brigade demolished more buildings than it saved, and that bystanders at fires sometimes got wet.

Nevertheless, most of the citizens appreciated the work of the brigade, and eventually the mayor of the town approached the volunteers and invited them to come under the umbrella of the city administration. The volunteers at first resisted these overtures, but eventually they agreed, and the new fire department was constituted, under the oversight of the deparment of Parks and Gardens.

Time passed, as it always does. The arsonists stepped up their campaign of disinformation. A new mayor was elected. The fire department increasingly came under the control of Parks and Gardens people who wanted more resources to beautify the city by planting flowering shrubs. Some of these listened to the murmurings of the arsonists, not realising their true source. Eventually they succeeded in getting rid of the original fire chief and began to divert the resources of the former fire brigade to their pet garden projects.

Bradford is a wannabe gardener who has been put in charge of a fire brigade and has no idea how to run one. So he's disbanding it and turning it into yet another gardening outfit instead.

Both firefighters and gardeners have their place; and apparently only Bradford is unable to see that. To join forces with Bradford means to leave off fighting fires, including life-threatening ones, and only plant flowering shrubs.

Regards,

Pahoran

Brother Pahoran:

Well done!

[Bryce Haymond]

And Bradford said, "We want a shrubbery!"

Well done Pahoran.

[William Schryver]

And Bradford said, "We want a shrubbery!"

Well done Pahoran.

A shrubbery?

[CASteinman]

A loyal following, volunteers, and money won't make a new FARMS reputable. How will you build a reputation as premier tier academic journal without the backing of an academy?

How did they do it before they had any connection with BYU? Back in those days they did their BEST work.

[ringringring]

Ain't gonna happen.

Are you able to answer authoritatively on this matter? I am puzzled by your confidence.

[ringringring]

Here's the thing, ringringring.

The problem is not that Bradford wants to do things differently; the problem is that he wants to do different things.

I am not certain why doing different things prevents new alliances from being built.

Bradford is a wannabe gardener who has been put in charge of a fire brigade and has no idea how to run one. So he's disbanding it and turning it into yet another gardening outfit instead.

Both firefighters and gardeners have their place; and apparently only Bradford is unable to see that. To join forces with Bradford means to leave off fighting fires, including life-threatening ones, and only plant flowering shrubs.

If you count producing scholarly work as "planting flowers". This seems a mean-spirited thing to say of Dr. Bradford. Have you met him? Do you know him to be a one-dimensional human being?

I think that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and others could contribute greatly. Perhaps their ability to contribute to the religious academic world is not fully developed (after all, neither can claim their fields of expertise to be at such a level to do proper academic work on the subject of religion), but they could contribute in an editorial capacity.

In fact, if they extended the olive branch, that may help mend a rift that is rocking the very institute that they love.

[Calm]

Do you know him to be a one-dimensional human being?

Nothing has been said about him being "one-dimensional". What is being discussed is how he has removed the apologetic dimension from the FARMS/Mormon Studies Review, making it less dimensional and neglecting one of the dimensions that it was created for and BYU committed to support when FARMS became part of MI.

[Calm]

neither can claim their fields of expertise to be at such a level to do proper academic work on the subject of religion

So you don't see their past work on the Book of Mormon having anything to do with the study of religion? You don't see Dr. Peterson's past publication on Islam as having anything to do with the study of religion? Or Dr. Hamblin's paper on "Aspects of an Early Christian Initiation Ritual" as working in the area the subject of religion?

but they could contribute in an editorial capacity

How can they when this is the very position that Dr. Bradford from which dismissed Dr. Peterson and the other editors?

Edited July 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[blackstrap]

Speaking of flowers..... You might like to meet George Bush....and his wife Rose....and his son Am.. I'm sure there is a connection there somewhere.

[nealr]

I noticed earlier in the conversation some folks were suggesting new acronyms for a FARMS-like group, so I thought I'd offer my own suggestion:

ARMED = Apologetic Research for Mormon Education and Defense.

[Pahoran]

I am not certain why doing different things prevents new alliances from being built.

And I am not certain (said Pahoran, patiently) how building alliances with someone who wants to do different things advances the things we want to do.

If you count producing scholarly work as "planting flowers". This seems a mean-spirited thing to say of Dr. Bradford. Have you met him? Do you know him to be a one-dimensional human being?

It's an analogy, ringringring. I no more "count producing scholarly work as 'planting flowers'" than I count producing a different kind of scholarly work as "putting out fires."

I think that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and others could contribute greatly. Perhaps their ability to contribute to the religious academic world is not fully developed (after all, neither can claim their fields of expertise to be at such a level to do proper academic work on the subject of religion), but they could contribute in an editorial capacity.

I don't think you actually know what you are talking about.

In fact, if they extended the olive branch, that may help mend a rift that is rocking the very institute that they love.

The point being that "the very institute that they love" no longer exists. A new institute, with new personnel and a new purpose, has taken over the name -- and that is all -- of what they love.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

I am not certain why doing different things prevents new alliances from being built.

If you count producing scholarly work as "planting flowers". This seems a mean-spirited thing to say of Dr. Bradford. Have you met him? Do you know him to be a one-dimensional human being?

I think that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and others could contribute greatly. Perhaps their ability to contribute to the religious academic world is not fully developed (after all, neither can claim their fields of expertise to be at such a level to do proper academic work on the subject of religion), but they could contribute in an editorial capacity.

In fact, if they extended the olive branch, that may help mend a rift that is rocking the very institute that they love.

May I Please. First why do you consider calling Dr. Bradford a flower planter as mean spirited? The world needs flower planters and it is honorable and honest work. What the world doesn't need is flower planters running fire brigades.

Second - the reason a cooperative venture with Dr. Bradford can't work is because that is what they had and Dr. Bradford dismantled it to rebuild it into a flower planter.

[wenglund]

My sister suggested: NICE (Nibley Institute for Critical Examinations)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Inspired me:

NOTSONICE: Network Of Theologians, Scholars and Other Nitpickers Investigating Christian Experience......

Feel free to find better alternatives for the last three letters, but I think the first six are perfect.

[ringringring]

May I Please. First why do you consider calling Dr. Bradford a flower planter as mean spirited? The world needs flower planters and it is honorable and honest work. What the world doesn't need is flower planters running fire brigades.

Second - the reason a cooperative venture with Dr. Bradford can't work is because that is what they had and Dr. Bradford dismantled it to rebuild it into a flower planter.

My mistake, then. Perhaps I have gotten too caught up in the rhetoric produced by Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and some of you kind people to realize that you actually hold Dr. Bradford in high esteem and support his changes.

My apologies.

[ringringring]

And I am not certain (said Pahoran, patiently) how building alliances with someone who wants to do different things advances the things we want to do.

It's an analogy, ringringring. I no more "count producing scholarly work as 'planting flowers'" than I count producing a different kind of scholarly work as "putting out fires."

No need to sharpen the tone, Mr. Pahoran. I was unaware that you had a stake in the new institute - that is what you mean when you say 'advance the things we want to do, isn't it?

Let me extend my apology - given the rhetoric of late, it's hard to distinguish friendly and not-so-friendly banter on this subject. I completely understand that you want to do different things, while at the same time, supporting Dr. Bradford in his efforts to take the Maxwell Institute into the realm of serious scholarship.

I don't think you actually know what you are talking about.

Don't be so certain, Mr. Pahoran. I am familiar with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin's apologetic works; and am sufficiently trained to make a reasonable judgment on their ability. I had a colleague review Dr. Hamblin's paper on early Christian ritual; she said it was passable as a senior undergrad lit review.

Best wishes in the creation of your new institution, Mr. Pahoran. Eagerly awaiting to see it's impact and it's output.

[Pahoran]

My mistake, then. Perhaps I have gotten too caught up in the rhetoric produced by Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and some of you kind people to realize that you actually hold Dr. Bradford in high esteem and support his changes.

My apologies.

Ever heard of the fallacy of the false dilemma? The choice is not between doing Mormon studies and doing apologetics -- or to go back to the parable, between planting shrubs and putting out fires. The choice is for which purpose we are going to use ostensibly dedicated firefighting (i.e. apologetics) resources.

Therefore, it remains possible to agree that what Dr Bradford wants to do is a good thing worth doing, without agreeing that subverting the Neal A. Maxwell institute was the right way to go about it.

Is that clear, now, finally, at long long last?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

My mistake, then. Perhaps I have gotten too caught up in the rhetoric produced by Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and some of you kind people to realize that you actually hold Dr. Bradford in high esteem and support his changes.

My apologies.

In my case I don't now enough about him to hold him in high or low esteem. I do, however, have some problems with his methods in this affair, they were somewhat problematic, If you are unfamiliar with how this was handled by Dr. Bradford go back and review. I do think the changes are a mistake.

[ERayR]

Don't be so certain, Mr. Pahoran. I am familiar with Dr. Peterson and Dr. Hamblin's apologetic works; and am sufficiently trained to make a reasonable judgment on their ability. I had a colleague review Dr. Hamblin's paper on early Christian ritual; she said it was passable as a senior undergrad lit review.

Best wishes in the creation of your new institution, Mr. Pahoran. Eagerly awaiting to see it's impact and it's output.

Since you have brought it up please post her credentials and her review so that we can review them. I think it only fair that if such a scathing review is to be offered all the facts surrounding it should also be posted. Otherwise it is just an anonymous hit piece and not worth the time it took you to quote her.

[volgadon]

I think that Dr. Peterson, Dr. Hamblin, and others could contribute greatly. Perhaps their ability to contribute to the religious academic world is not fully developed (after all, neither can claim their fields of expertise to be at such a level to do proper academic work on the subject of religion)

What fields of expertise, and at what level, do you consider requisite for "proper academic work" on the subject of religion?

[Pahoran]

Since you have brought it up please post her credentials and her review so that we can review them. I think it only fair that if such a scathing review is to be offered all the facts surrounding it should also be posted. Otherwise it is just an anonymous hit piece and not worth the time it took you to quote her.

What? A FARMS critic offering an unsubstantial "hit piece?" Say it ain't so, or I shall have to renounce my faith in the infallibility of the secular academy!

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Since you have brought it up please post her credentials and her review so that we can review them. I think it only fair that if such a scathing review is to be offered all the facts surrounding it should also be posted. Otherwise it is just an anonymous hit piece and not worth the time it took you to quote her.

A few years ago, the queen of CARM had a sockpuppet here. She claimed to have some anonymous, expert Hebrew scholars proving Maklelan wrong. I did some poking around and her scholars were actually little more than non-academic Jewish posters at CARM. There was also an antimormon on facebook who had another set of close Biblical Hebrew scholar friends which ruled that BYU Hebrew professors knew nothing at all. Turned out that those close friends were acquaintances he had met only once, at some charity event. They weren't Hebrew scholars either, but Jewish medical students, and the BYU professors they encountered were undergraduate students at BYU. Claiming anonymous scholars has ceased impressing me long ago.

[ringringring]

Ever heard of the fallacy of the false dilemma? The choice is not between doing Mormon studies and doing apologetics -- or to go back to the parable, between planting shrubs and putting out fires. The choice is for which purpose we are going to use ostensibly dedicated firefighting (i.e. apologetics) resources.

Therefore, it remains possible to agree that what Dr Bradford wants to do is a good thing worth doing, without agreeing that subverting the Neal A. Maxwell institute was the right way to go about it.

Is that clear, now, finally, at long long last?

Perhaps the Maxwell Institute is no longer a fire department. That much is clear. What is speculation on your part, Mr. Pahoran, is that subversion has occurred.

[Pahoran]

Perhaps the Maxwell Institute is no longer a fire department. That much is clear.

And a fire brigade is still needed. That much is also clear. So the obvious solution -- establish a new volunteer brigade -- is clear as well.

What is speculation on your part, Mr. Pahoran, is that subversion has occurred.

It's a conclusion based upon pretty clear evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JackNimble]

The question to be asked... Why do they fight so hard to keep it from being restored if it's not wanted or needed?