Can The Maxwell Institute Go More Secular?

[Greg Kofford Books]

Because I have been reading the tripe from LDS writings out of BYU (MI and BYU Studies under the tutelage and care of Jack Welch are the two serious exceptions) now for decades, and compared to the scholarship on scriptures it's a mouse to an elephant. Biblical scholarship is simply lightyears ahead of Mormons who continue quoting Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as if they were Bible scholars and have something to say that is accurate from today's understanding and scholarship. We SORELY need to update our LDS scholarship. We are losing by default and don't even know it. And why don't we? Because all we read is the LDS faith promoting junk without any recourse to the really quality scholarship and we have myopically been hypnotized into thinking what we are reading IS the good stuff.

Kerry, I'm going to shamelessly plug one of our books. If you haven't read Charles Harrell's "This Is My Doctrine" I highly suggest you check it out. It is the only monograph I am aware of that strongly engages contemporary Biblical criticism.

http://www.gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

[CASteinman]

Not sure if this was addressed to me or to Bradford

Addressed to you but it was an answer to your representation of Bradford's hypothetical position (I don't think it is his position -- and so, at least in this, I don't think he is lying)

As for the "new style," I thought Bradford did a pretty good job of explaining it in his aforementioned article.

"His" article does not explain anything about apologetics one way or the other. Its talking about other subjects.

Not sure what else he can do if some people are too dense to "get it".

Well, he has several things he could do for the dense:

1. "Speak" clearly in an actual announcement of what the vision is.

2. If he really has a problem with any particular one special style of apologetics (new, old, red, garlic flavored, etc.) he could explain that in words that the dense would comprehend. And it would put to rest the rumor going around that he is opposed (irrationally) to all apologetics of all stripes (peppermint, Peruvian, or Petersonian for example).

I was not aware that he "took over" anything. BYU did; which means the Church.

OK. Thought you would have noticed. He fired all the board members and took over Mormon Studies Reviews.

You are still not "getting it". There is a "dearth" of those kinds of publications, compared to what can be achieved, and of the right quality and kind. I do admit though that by the look of things, the likelihood that "LDS scholars" will achieve that goal very soon appears to be slim. Non-LDS scholars are likely to do better for the foreseeable future.

Maybe it would have been easier to "get it" if Bradford had not written a paper showing that there are many of them doing a pretty good job. But with that paper there, listing them in detail, its hard to "get" that they don't exist or aren't good enough.

It becomes even harder to "get it" when you then add on top of all that that Mormon Scholars are just not up to the task of participating (even though many of them would adamantly claim that their papers in those journals suggest otherwise). If they are not just up to the task then not only is there a good number of them... but they are doing a much better job than we can do.

Does that shed any light on how it would be hard for folk like me to not be able to "get it"?

[CASteinman]

Because I have been reading the tripe from LDS writings out of BYU (MI and BYU Studies under the tutelage and care of Jack Welch are the two serious exceptions) now for decades, and compared to the scholarship on scriptures it's a mouse to an elephant. Biblical scholarship is simply lightyears ahead of Mormons who continue quoting Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as if they were Bible scholars and have something to say that is accurate from today's understanding and scholarship. We SORELY need to update our LDS scholarship. We are losing by default and don't even know it. And why don't we? Because all we read is the LDS faith promoting junk without any recourse to the really quality scholarship and we have myopically been hypnotized into thinking what we are reading IS the good stuff.

Apples to Aardvarks.

The average "Bible believer" is measurably behind in his knowledge of same vs the average LDS person. This has been borne out by one of those "secular studies" that Bradford may be seeking to emulate.

The run of the mill member (who -- again I add -- is more knowledgeable about the Bible than other Church goers) should be more worried about braces for his kid's teeth and how well his home teaching families are doing than whether Moses talked about Yahweh or Elohim.

And your frantic hair pulling is not only based on false perceptions of how things are... but it does not help either the real life braces and home teaching problems nor does it solve the mostly imaginary (or at least well exaggerated) problem you are concerned about either.

[zerinus]

Addressed to you but it was an answer to your representation of Bradford's hypothetical position (I don't think it is his position--and so, at least in this, I don't think he is lying)

Oh, I am sure he will be very pleased to hear that!

"His" article does not explain anything about apologetics one way or the other. Its talking about other subjects.

There are two answers to that. (1) it does talk about what I will call, for want of a better word, "old style apologetics," by essentially putting it aside as far as FARMS/MI is concerned. And (2) It talks about "apologetics" in another way, because what he is proposing is in fact a form of apologetics, but of a different style and different direction. He still wants to do "apologetics," but of a different kind. That is what he is proposing in that article.

Well, he has several things he could do for the dense:

1. "Speak" clearly in an actual announcement of what the vision is.

2. If he really has a problem with any particular one special style of apologetics (new, old, red, garlic flavored, etc.) he could explain that in words that the dense would comprehend. And it would put to rest the rumor going around that he is opposed (irrationally) to all apologetics of all stripes (peppermint, Peruvian, or Petersonian for example).

I thought that is exactly what he had done in that article. I certainly had no difficulty comprehending it; I don't understand why you do.

OK. Thought you would have noticed. He fired all the board members and took over Mormon Studies Reviews.

Yes, after ten years of trying. And don't forger that the Church appointed him to that position, after having acquired FARMS.

Maybe it would have been easier to "get it" if Bradford had not written a paper showing that there are many of them doing a pretty good job. But with that paper there, listing them in detail, its hard to "get" that they don't exist or aren't good enough.

Yes, they do exist; but are not as good as what could be achieved by committed LDS scholars once they "get it". "Getting it" appears to be the hard part.

It becomes even harder to "get it" when you then add on top of all that that Mormon Scholars are just not up to the task of participating (even though many of them would adamantly claim that their papers in those journals suggest otherwise). If they are not just up to the task then not only is there a good number of them... but they are doing a much better job than we can do.

I didn't say that they are not up to the task. They would be up to the task once they catch the vision that Bradford has. That is where it has been stuck. Once it becomes unstuck, I am sure they will be able to do a pretty good job. That is why I think that turning to non-LDS scholars initially might be a good way of triggering the right response from LDS scholars eventually.

Does that shed any light on how it would be hard for folk like me to not be able to "get it"?

Yes, but not of the kind that you were expecting!

[CASteinman]

There are two answers to that. (1) it does talk about what I will call, for want of a better word, "old style apologetics," by essentially putting it aside as far as FARMS/MI is concerned. And (2) It talks about "apologetics" in another way, because what he is proposing is in fact a form of apologetics, but of a different style and different direction. He still wants to do "apologetics," but of a different kind. That is what he is proposing in that article.

Just think! If only he had even remotely hinted at such a thing you might have a point!

I thought that is exactly what he had done in that article. I certainly had no difficulty comprehending it; I don't understand why you do.

Well, I tend to have a hard time comprehending that a person has said something that they did not say! Its a problem, I know.

Yes, after ten years of trying. And don't forger that the Church appointed him to that position, after having acquired FARMS.

Ten years of trying? Is this the myth du jour? He's been involved with FARMS for 17 years. Was he not trying the whole time?

I didn't say that they are not up to the task. They would be up to the task once they catch the vision that Bradford has. That is where it has been stuck. Once it becomes unstuck, I am sure they will be able to do a pretty good job. That is why I think that turning to non-LDS scholars initially might be a good way of triggering the right response from LDS scholars eventually.

What you said, exactly was: "I do admit though that by the look of things, the likelihood that "LDS scholars" will achieve that goal very soon appears to be slim. Non-LDS scholars are likely to do better for the foreseeable future."

Notice that you placed the term "LDS Scholars" in quote marks? There are two important uses for quote marks. One use is when you are directly quoting someone (in which case the quoted party should be either obvious because named or obvious by context). The other use is to set off a term that is considered to be ironic language -- in other words, the intent is that things are actually the opposite of the words said. For example if I said

"Scratch was really "sad" about it." -- I am being ironic, the reality is that Scratch was really Happy about it So when you wrote "LDS Scholars" in quotes -- but it was not actually a quote -- it looks like you are speaking ironically. This goes double when you then do NOT put "Non-LDS Scholars" in quotes. Then it looks like the LDS Scholars are bogus and the only credible researchers are non-lds. Which, when read that way, fits exactly into the meaning of the other words you typed out -- that LDS Scholars could not do the job and it would take non-lds scholars to do it.

Not only this, but you indicated that LDS Scholars are so benighted that the idea of them being able to accomplish such a thing is not apparently possible in any reasonably long length of time.

But I am OK if you want to change the meaning of your words. Despite that it STILL does not work

We cannot match any secular school in secularism. BYU is emphatically not a secular institution. And the scholarship of the world is absolutely 100% dedicated to secularism. An attempt to go secular -- worldly rejection of religion -- is stepping into an arena specifically designed to reject our very first syllable before it is uttered, or should it be accepted -- to rejoice at our new found atheism.. Its a fools errand.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

What you said, exactly was: "I do admit though that by the look of things, the likelihood that "LDS scholars" will achieve that goal very soon appears to be slim. Non-LDS scholars are likely to do better for the foreseeable future."

Notice that you placed the term "LDS Scholars" in quote marks? There are two important uses for quote marks. One use is when you are directly quoting someone (in which case the quoted party should be either obvious because named or obvious by context). The other use is to set off a term that is considered to be ironic language -- in other words, the intent is that things are actually the opposite of the words said. For example if I said

"Scratch was really "sad" about it." -- I am being ironic, the reality is that Scratch was really Happy about it So when you wrote "LDS Scholars" in quotes -- but it was not actually a quote -- it looks like you are speaking ironically. This goes double when you then do NOT put "Non-LDS Scholars" in quotes. Then it looks like the LDS Scholars are bogus and the only credible researchers are non-lds. Which, when read that way, fits exactly into the meaning of the other words you typed out -- that LDS Scholars could not do the job and it would take non-lds scholars to do it.

Not only this, but you indicated that LDS Scholars are so benighted that the idea of them being able to accomplish such a thing is not apparently possible in any reasonably long length of time.

But I am OK if you want to change the meaning of your words. Despite that it STILL does not work

We cannot match any secular school in secularism. BYU is emphatically not a secular institution. And the scholarship of the world is absolutely 100% dedicated to secularism. An attempt to go secular -- worldly rejection of religion -- is stepping into an arena specifically designed to reject our very first syllable before it is uttered, or should it be accepted -- to rejoice at our new found atheism.. Its a fools errand.

LDS scholars are not a homogeneous bunch. Some are better than others, and some are very good, and some are hopeless! I have been a bit sarcastic towards them because too many of them in my opinion perform below standard--which is not a peculiarity of LDS scholars. In the non-LDS world too some scholars are better than others.

[Calm]

I doubt it. I see no reason why one bias would be any different from another. This is probably impossible to test.

It would depend on the reinforcers. I suspect Kerry sees the idea that God approves of your beliefs as an ultimate reinforcer (which makes sense but people don't always act in what others see as sensible ways even if it makes sense to them), but that doesn't stop people from sinning when they believe God doesn't want them to so I don't think that such reinforcement is consistent with everyone.

I am not sure it would be impossible to test, but I do think it would simply demonstrate that depending on the context and history of an individual religious bias may be very weak, vary in intensity mildly to drastically or is very strong. Or something else entirely, lol.

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

LDS scholars are not a homogeneous bunch. Some are better than others, and some are very good, and some are hopeless! I have been a bit sarcastic towards them because too many of them in my opinion perform below standard--which is not a peculiarity of LDS scholars. In the non-LDS world too some scholars are better than others.

You mean, they perform below your standards.

What are your qualifications to make such determinations of people with PhD's in specific areas?

[Calm]

I don't know the details; but judging by what others have said, he tried for a decade before giving up hope.

He was made executive director of MI in 2008: http://news.byu.edu/archive08-Jun-bradford.aspx Before that he should have been implementing his director's vision by your standard, if I understand you rightly.

Personally if the agreed upon vision of an institution is one thing, it seems to me that one should have those involved in the original agreement on board for changing it prior to attempting to change it. It seems the ethical thing to do rather than just going ahead and basically changing the 'contract' without actually changing it.

Is it right to go ahead and implement change in a marriage if one of the spouses doesn't agree with it?

In any business contract, is it okay to change the conditions of it without consent of all those involved in the contract?

If the contract was verbal, does it make it any less ethical to break it than it does a written contract?

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

I am not sure it would be impossible to test

How would you structure a test that could objectively measure the strength of different types of bias. Let's pick 5 types:

Religious Bias -- Bias for a Religious View.

Atheistic Bias -- Bias against any Religious View.

anti-Human Bias -- Bias against Human's as a desirable organism on the earth.

anti-Mosquito Bias - Bias against Mosquitos as a desirable organism on the earth.

Profit-bias -- bias in favor of the notion that capitalists should profit off the labor of workers.

What is the unit of measure of bias strength? Once defined how would you measure the number of units of bias strength each of these biases had?

I don't think it is a testable idea.

[Calm]

His best bet might be to solicit articles from sympathetic non-LDS scholars, until LDS scholars begin to see things the way he sees them.

Honestly this sounds rather absurd when one is talking about an LDS institute.

[Calm]

How would you structure a test that could objectively measure the strength of different types of bias. Let's pick 5 types:

Religious Bias -- Bias for a Religious View.

Atheistic Bias -- Bias against any Religious View.

anti-Human Bias -- Bias against Human's as a desirable organism on the earth.

anti-Mosquito Bias - Bias against Mosquitos as a desirable organism on the earth.

Profit-bias -- bias in favor of the notion that capitalists should profit off the labor of workers.

What is the unit of measure of bias strength? Once defined how would you measure the number of units of bias strength each of these biases had?

I don't think it is a testable idea.

In such broad terms, most definitely. Also, one would have to make much more specific categories and that would likely render it meaningless for such a broad statement. I am not certain one could collect enough studies dealing with specifics to combine for such a broad topic as "religious view" when "religious view" is such a broad category already. It would be close to having to test infinite variables for infinite positions of "religious view". Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

However, if he could take over and subvert the only reasonable and decently organized publication for apologetics, he might win by having a "captive audience".

And extensive funding already in place.

[CASteinman]

In such broad terms, most definitely. One would have to make much more specific categories and that would likely render it meaningless for such a broad statement. I am not certain one could collect enough studies dealing with specifics to combine for such a broad topic as "religious view" when "religious view" is such a broad category already. It would be close to having to test infinite variables for infinite positions of "religious view".

My original comment was in response to this "YES religious bias is harder to overcome than other bias....... I would propose absolutely..... "

Which is a statement that I view as exceptionally ironic in that it is a heavily biased statement expressed with great -- you could say religious - fervor.

In a way, to my eye, its almost like saying "Religious Bias is intellectually wrong -- and I so object to it that I condemn to intellectual jail, any people who have such Bias. Instead.. they should be like me - unbiased!

Its a mass of contradictions that makes the position nonsensical. Well.. as I see it.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

You mean, they perform below your standards.

No, it is my opinion, which may be different from your opinion. I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to your.

What are your qualifications to make such determinations of people with PhD's in specific areas?

My qualification is that I take an interest in the subject enough study it, to be able to have an opinion. I don't think that any further "qualification" is required. How about you? What is your qualification?

[CASteinman]

My qualification is that I take an interest in the subject enough study it, to be able to have an opinion. I don't think that any further "qualification" is required. How about you? What is your qualification?

The difference is.. I am not judging them in this regard. You are, however.

[zerinus]

He was made executive director of MI in 2008: http://news.byu.edu/archive08-Jun-bradford.aspx Before that he should have been implementing his director's vision by your standard, if I understand you rightly.

Personally if the agreed upon vision of an institution is one thing, it seems to me that one should have those involved in the original agreement on board for changing it prior to attempting to change it. It seems the ethical thing to do rather than just going ahead and basically changing the 'contract' without actually changing it.

Is it right to go ahead and implement change in a marriage if one of the spouses doesn't agree with it?

In any business contract, is it okay to change the conditions of it without consent of all those involved in the contract?

If the contract was verbal, does it make it any less ethical to break it than it does a written contract?

They should have realized that once they became part of BYU, they would no longer be in control, and anything could happen in the future which might not be to their liking.

[zerinus]

The difference is.. I am not judging them in this regard. You are, however.

You are judging them, but more favourably. That is the difference. You are not judging Bradford very favourably though, are you.

[CASteinman]

You are judging them, but more favourably. That is the difference. You are not judging Bradford very favourably though, are you.

No. I am not judging them either way. THAT is the difference. If you think I have judged them more favorably: I challenge you -- find a statement from me to that effect.

On the other matter, you are right. I do not judge Bradford very favorably. THAT however, is not on any sort of spiritual matter but upon his management skills and acumen, a subject upon which I *do* have both training and experience.

I read his biography and am amazed that someone with his education and background could have conducted this in such an amateurish manner. It is the kind of mistake one would expect from a first timer. Well, not even all first timers.

There are other explanations than a lapse in judgment, but these are far worse in nature and so I have chosen the most charitable perspective possible.

And note: This assessment remains even if Daniel Peterson were a perfectly horrible little boy of an employee. The only way that this process would make sense is if Daniel Peterson were openly in rebellion such that the reputation of the institution was in immediate danger of some calamity like horrible financial loss, depletion of resources including personnel, devastating loss of market or rapid destruction of brand value.

[Calm]

They should have realized that once they became part of BYU, they would no longer be in control, and anything could happen in the future which might not be to their liking.

I think they did realize that. Have you read Dr. Hamblin's informative blog on this time?

Even though they reluctantly gave up control, I suspect they hoped people would keep their word or rather that those who came in later would still honour the agreement that the transfer of control was made under. Some were more cynical than others, some more optimistic.

When we get married, I think most people realize that while they are making a commitment of fidelity, that doesn't guarantee that their spouse will never step out on them. One can only truly control one's own behaviour.

That doesn't mean we don't have hope or trust in others that they will abide by the agreements or covenants or contracts or promises we've made to each other.

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Honestly this sounds rather absurd when one is talking about an LDS institute.

Not at all. I don't agree. Just because BYU is LDS, that does not mean that they cannot invite participation by non-LDS who agree to our standards, even if they may disagree with our theology. Do you remember Cardinal George, who was invited to speak at BYU devotional some time ago (see here, here, and here)? Or Richard Mouw and Ravi Zacharias who have spoken at the Tabernacle, and had other contacts with LDS (see here)? So why not invite non-LDS to contribute to a new vision of FARMS/MI, expecially if LDS can't do better?

Edited June 27, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

No. I am not judging them either way. THAT is the difference. If you think I have judged them more favorably: I challenge you -- find a statement from me to that effect.

I am not judging them as persons, but their performance as scholars, and so are you--if for no other reason than because you are disagreeing me.

On the other matter, you are right. I do not judge Bradford very favorably. THAT however, is not on any sort of spiritual matter but upon his management skills and acumen, a subject upon which I *do* have both training and experience.

Well, I cannot comment on his management skills or acumen, because I don't have all the facts. It is quite possible that he has failings in that regard, as we all have in some regard. But I can comment confidently about his vision of FARMS/MI, because I do have enough information to be able to form an opinion of; and my opinion is that I am in favour of it.

I read his biography and am amazed that someone with his education and background could have conducted this in such an amateurish manner. It is the kind of mistake one would expect from a first timer. Well, not even all first timers.

There are other explanations than a lapse in judgment, but these are far worse in nature and so I have chosen the most charitable perspective possible.

And note: This assessment remains even if Daniel Peterson were a perfectly horrible little boy of an employee. The only way that this process would make sense is if Daniel Peterson were openly in rebellion such that the reputation of the institution was in immediate danger of some calamity like horrible financial loss, depletion of resources including personnel, devastating loss of market or rapid destruction of brand value.

Again, I don't have enough information to be able to have an opinion. He seems to have handled the case badly, but I cannot be too sure without further information.

[zerinus]

I think they did realize that. Have you read Dr. Hamblin's informative blog on this time?

Even though they reluctantly gave up control, I suspect they hoped people would keep their word or rather that those who came in later would still honour the agreement that the transfer of control was made under. Some were more cynical than others, some more optimistic.

When we get married, I think most people realize that while they are making a commitment of fidelity, that doesn't guarantee that their spouse will never step out on them. One can only truly control one's own behaviour.

That doesn't mean we don't have hope or trust in others that they will abide by the agreements or covenants or contracts or promises we've made to each other.

The two situations are not similar. Once one business takes over another, then anything can happen. It would be naive to have any other expectation.

[zerinus]

By the way you guys, I will be taking a break from forum activity for a while in order to focus on my scripture studies. I have been neglecting that for quite a while because of involvement in these forums, and I need to go back to it for a time. So unless something serious comes up in these threads that need to be answered, I will be taking a break for a couple of months. Have a great time in the meanwhile!

[CASteinman]

I am not judging them as persons, but their performance as scholars, and so are you--if for no other reason than because you are disagreeing me.

No, I am not judging them even as scholars. How could I?

Well, I cannot comment on his management skills or acumen, because I don't have all the facts.

This is not an area where you need all of the facts. This is not something where you need to know the whys and wherefores -- the results are sufficient: 1) Private information, including emails, have been leaked under his watch and this has being going on for months -- something that is even potentially a legal liability and 2) The manner in which it has been done is a textbook case of how not to do it to include the impersonal notification without warning and finally 3) the abruptness not being required but instead requiring a further unplanned disruption in activities of the entity.

This is all wrong. And while most of it is not subject to action before the law, one of them exposes the institution to both public ridicule and (as I said) to legal liability.

But I can comment confidently about his vision of FARMS/MI, because I do have enough information to be able to form an opinion of; and my opinion is that I am in favour of it.

Well fortunately you don't need to be well endowed with facts to be confident in something. You do not know his vision for "Mormon Studies Reviews" as an organization. You know what he wrote in a paper 5 years ago about the area of "Mormon Studies" (for which topic there is already a good organization under his command), but you do not know what his intentions are regarding reviews of Mormon Studies -- as he never discusses this. We hear rumors that he wants to essentially discontinue them. But we do not know. Your agreement with rumors and innuendo notwithstanding.

Again, I don't have enough information to be able to have an opinion. He seems to have handled the case badly, but I cannot be too sure without further information.

What possible further information would you need? You don't, for example, need to know his intentions. His intentions are irrelevant to his competence. Other things not needed to be known: Was he angry? Was he commanded to do this by someone else? How long had he been mulling this over? Is there someone else ready to take over? Does he have a different vision than Peterson? Is Peterson incompetent? Is Bradford otherwise competent? Has he never made a mistake like this before? Does Peterson steal toilet tissue from the men's room?

None of those things matter with regard to how this was handled. For business type decisions, it is not your intentions, your knowledge, your background, your education or other such things: It is simply the results and especially results that could be predicted.

So what additional information do you suppose you would need?