Why Byu And The Maxwell Institute Are In Serious, Serious Trouble

[Calm]

Wow. I was expecting to disagree with this. ActualIy only disagree wtih the title. I do not think BYU is in any sort of trouble because of this.

Unfortunately I've heard from several who I trust their opinions on such things that this is something that is affecting the whole school, that the administration is not that concerned with getting professors with backgrounds in research in their fields....maybe be good or even great undergrad teachers and administrators, but helping to push the boundaries of knowledge...? If so, the academic quality of BYU overall will suffer.

[Calm]

David,

An excellent, albeit troubling point. Well written.

I have no idea where it will go from here. The reality is that the sacking of Dan and others will act as a warning against LDS students currently seeking or pondering seeking a degree in biblical studies for fear of reprisal within if they apply it to their faith. I am curious how all of this is playing out with students at BYU in the ANES program.

Hadn't even thought about this consequence....wouldn't be the least surprised if this happen. Plus if they are worried about the long term academic credibility of the program, they might become shy at even going to BYU if they were interested in any such fields.

[Robert F. Smith]

Dan has been very vocal on the internet, using his own name. I believe that he was fired for his remarks on the internet and his defense of the lds church. I don't think that his firing was about one incident. If so, this sends a message to future scholars to tone down their internet remarks, be careful of what they say, or use a different screen name from their own.

Nonsense.

Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!

[Calm]

This, actually, is the most disturbing thing in the entire post.

Very disturbing for me as well since Dana is one of our neighbours (he hometeaches with my husband, his wife is my VT, both are brilliant and some of the most inspiring and "faith promoting" people I have ever known...and some of the kindest, won't say anything negative about others, at least he never has in my hearing, just smiles with that sweet smile). The idea that anything he wrote could compromise someone's faith is ridiculous to me.

[why me]

I would be gasted in all the flabber regions if I learned that Scratch and his minions (not the real deal.. the Piker on the Board that may not be named) would have had any influence on this at all.

First, scratch as an internet persona no. But if many critics by using their own name were placing complaints about dan and his apologetics, that would give authorities something to think about. Was this happening? I have no idea. But like I said, Dan has been extremely vocal on the internet, getting into arguments against his distractors etc. He was known and he made a great impact.

[why me]

Nonsense.

Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!

I hope you are right. I agree. Full speed ahead. Lets hope that the young faithful up incoming apologists agree.

[zerinus]

The recent firing of Daniel Peterson as editor of the Review of Mormon Studies has been the subject of considerable attention. While almost everyone in Mormon studies has expressed concern over the way that this change was handled, several younger LDS scholars have shared their excitement over the announcement that with this move, BYU’s Maxwell Institute is seeking to increase its academic significance. In terms of the firing of Dr. Peterson, the Institute’s website states:

While I hate to be a pessimist, and certainly support the sentiment expressed in this declaration, I believe that the loss of Dr. Peterson will actually bring greater challenges to accomplish this goal than many have realized.

I think that your post has been in part addressed in a message I posted in another thread which can be read here.

Losing Dr. Peterson will come with a heavy price. Dr. Peterson is responsible for contributing some of the most interesting observations on the Book of Mormon that the Maxwell Institute has published, including articles that explore possible Book of Mormon allusions to the Northwest Semitic goddess Asherah, as well as issues connected with Nephite kingship and authority.

Yes, I remember that article being discussed here nearly two years, and a blog piece that I wrote about it which can be read here. That is a typical example of the kind of "substandard apologetic work" that I had mentioned in the above post.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe not, if we base our definition of postmodernism as a rejection of meta-narratives, which is what mormonism is since it holds a meta-truth claim.

We will have to get into it some time. If you understand all language as metaphor, nothing makes real "truth claims", as this video about Rorty will show. Remember Rorty is talking about Pragmatism as founded by William James, who is often recognized as a "closet Mormon"

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

I think it is hardly the case that Mormons believe in meta-truth claims since very few even understand what they are. Most will say "I know the church is true" which means to them, that it makes their lives fulfilling and happy and is a wonderful life style and that they have had religious experiences which make them believe that.

That is hardly a "meta-truth claim"

But this is a derail- if you want to start another thread about it, go ahead, I will chime in if I have time- but this is a busy time for me, especially tomorrow.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I do remember Sally. I cannot say I liked her approach to things all the time, but I would not count myself among some of the folk who felt inclined to be against her.

Well good to see you again then I guess since we probably knew each other in the AOL pre-existence

[Calm]

Wonderful things are in the offing. I'm sure of it. Think of the next BBQ . . .

I appreciate the optimism. I will hope that it is the clearest of visions of the future here.

Sometimes good things can come from bad, who knows maybe even this with Dan might throw the pendulum into swinging the other way.

PS: I have little doubt that in the long run things will improve...LDS are just too devoted to education and our activity/commitment to the faith does not decrease with educational level for us so, eventually enough in the overall culture will have received the kind of insight that promotes a desire for even more scholarship and learning that it will not be looked on with concern by the majority of members even if they are not interested in such things. Scholars are just another minority in the Church that are slowly growing in numbers and filtering into levels of authority so they can share their POV with a wider LDS audience......

I would just prefer that the long run is really short term.

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Unfortunately I've heard from several who I trust their opinions on such things that this is something that is affecting the whole school, that the administration is not that concerned with getting professors with backgrounds in research in their fields....maybe be good or even great undergrad teachers and administrators, but helping to push the boundaries of knowledge...? If so, the academic quality of BYU overall will suffer.

I see zero evidence of this. But BYU is not my Alma Mater and its not my job to worry over such hypotheticals... so I might have missed it.

[mfbukowski]

Yeh.

Good yeh or bad yeh?

[why me]

its not my job to worry over such hypotheticals... so I might have missed it.

Not to worry about them but to consider them, especially when thinking about the future. And then one can prepare for them if they come to pass or attempt to blunt them from happening, if hypotheticals are becoming reality.

[CASteinman]

Not to worry about them but to consider them, especially when thinking about the future. And then one can prepare for them if they come to pass or attempt to blunt them from happening, if hypotheticals are becoming reality.

I am more inclined to think that "all things shall work together for the good of them that believe". This may be a great opportunity to have a refreshing new organization -- one like the old FARMS that Welch started -- pick up where it left off -- one or two decades ago. If I had the substance to do it, I would see to it. Unfortunately, I am relegated to spectator.

[Calm]

I see zero evidence of this. But BYU is not my Alma Mater and its not my job to worry over such hypotheticals... so I might have missed it.

It would be interesting to look at the hires in all the fields in the past ten years or so and see what their backgrounds are.

I know they dropped the ball on my husband (who of course is the best of the best ) and allowed UVU to scoop him up right from underneath their noses....which I am forever grateful because he gets to keep his beard, doesn't have to wear ties and I think his personality fits better over at UVU and they have great faculty parties.

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[David Bokovoy]

?

Edited March 3, 2014 by David Bokovoy

[JackNimble]

As another here pointed out earlier, Joseph Smith successfully combined the academic study with the the promptings of the Comforter. Faith and testimony are powerful things to oneself. They are not to be pitted one against the other or even considered rivaling ideals. They do compliment, and even rely, upon the other. Joseph Smith studied Hebrew. You have to ask "why". It was to have a better grasp of the scriptures. To give full credence to one area and minimal credence to the other does not help the Saint is to remeber "moderation in all things". President Hinkley once said something that stuck with me and that is that the "Latter-day Saints seek truth". It doesn't matter where that truth comes from. There are truths to be found in practically every religion in the world but that does not mean we, as the true church, have all those truths. There is a place for scholarship and there is a place for faith. That doesn't mean that "Ne'er the two shall meet". I'm not sure why it was thought necessary that apologetics, which I consider part of the defensive shield and armor of the Saints and the church, should be absorbed into BYU's Mormon Studies only to be phased out. Perhaps FARMS should never have submitted to the pressure of merging. Perhaps BYU should have left the area of scholarly apologetics to those scholars. We live, we learn, and just as the early church found out, things don't always come out as perfect as we want them to.

I love Dr. Peterson's work. It has its place. I love Robert Millet's work. It too, has its place. Even Kerry Shirt's work and play has its place (just teasing, Kerry, I love your work too).

Just my humble unscholarly opinion.

[mercyngrace]

Nothing is the matter with scholarship. The matter is the lack of it from our church. We do not pursue knowledge near as intently, interestingly, nor write about it near as powerful or well or thorough as the Bible scholars do. Now like I say there are exceptions to this in LDS scholarship, I assure you, but overall? The Religious joint at BYU that is not the Maxwell Institute is STILL quoting the WRONG people who were not in the know in their day, and certainly completely outdated nowadays......if you are going to force me to mention names, I will, but with this serious intent of NOT trying to insult or defame or criticize of brethren in ANY manner, and DAMMIT I mean it, cause I get so sick of being told I am apostatizing and going afield and losing my testimony and the Spirit of God is grieved in me and Satan laughs with delight to see how he has so successfully dragged down one of Saturday's Warriors, and ad nauseum sickening ridiculous STUPID reasoning and reasons. How's that for a rant eh? Quoting Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie AS IF they represent good Bible scholarship. They don't. They never did, they NEVER will. Man we have an enormous amount of growing up and getting serious to do and broadening our base of knowledge beyond anything we have ever done as a church, and we better get with it NOW and FAST.

Amen and Amen.

My faith has only been strengthened as I've studied non-LDS Biblical scholarship - even the writings of non-believers. I will say that studying the Bible has rewritten the narrative of my faith in a beautiful and profound way that has actually insulated me from apostasy (not that this was an issue) rather than pushing me toward it. I'll even go so far as to say that the current period of apostasy, so described by Elder Jensen, could be significantly eased by a better narrative, and a deeper understanding of the Bible can provide that.

As LDS, I don't think we know what we have in the Bible. I think it supports some of the core doctrines of the LDS church better than we realize and I think it also divides asunder some of the cultural baggage and popular misinterpretations of doctrine that have cropped up around the church in a way that is understandable and yet non-threatening.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Maybe not, if we base our definition of postmodernism as a rejection of meta-narratives, which is what mormonism is since it holds a meta-truth claim.

I think this is entirely debatable (and I have) - since I think that Mormonism is very much a postmodern religion in its doctrine. Where postmodernism will really be seen as a threat to the church is not is rejection of meta-narratives (a notion which is absolutely compatible with the idea of continuing revelation, and the notion that the church does not have the entire truth) but rather its deconstruction of authority. It's the part that suggests that personal revelation is the most important revelation, and that prophets and leaders aren't particularly better suited for this than any other member. It's the bit that says that we must all interpret the scriptures ourselves (with the spirit) - and that relying on how General Authorities interpret them (and express their interpretations) is a certain path to misunderstanding and not a route to real truth. It is the realization that when the lesson on Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life in Sunday School quotes a General Authority for an interpretation of some of the symbolism that this is nothing more than being treated like Laman and Lemuel who go to ask Nephi what it means. Their role as revelators is for the church - and there, we recognize that they have a great deal of authority, but we deconstruct it everywhere else.

On the other issue, there is this other interesting aspect - much of what has been produced as recent good scholarship in the realm of Mormon studies has come outside of BYU and outside of the NAMI. I have papers nearly ready to be published of interest. One of them I had intended for the Review and will need a new venue. The other was never intended to be published by NAMI or by BYU. Those audiences didn't appeal to me for that paper either.

I agree that this will have a chilling effect on scholars publishing - but only those publishing through NAMI or through BYU. A friend of mine is on the board of Dialogue. He has been pestering me for a couple of years to get something to them to publish. Perhaps this will push Dialogue further into the mainstream awareness of LDS members. It may increase the ratio of faithful member publications there. When BYU absorbed FARMS, if my understanding is correct, it produced some incentives for LDS educators to publish with FARMS (as opposed to other venues). This kind of situation may create enough aversion to overcome those incentives. That may, of course, cause conflict at BYU of a longer lasting sort.

Of course, I am not a part of BYU. I never plan on being part of BYU. I am not a professional educator, and I don't have any plans to become one. I am just a forty year old interested party. So there is very, very little influence that these events can have over what I choose to write about and how I choose to express myself.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

As LDS, I don't think we know what we have in the Bible. I think it supports some of the core doctrines of the LDS church better than we realize and I think it also divides asunder some of the cultural baggage and popular misinterpretations of doctrine that have cropped up around the church in a way that is understandable and yet non-threatening.

This is the great challenge with Correlation. I think we have gotten to a point in the church that that program has begun being more of a hindrance than a help. Yes, it does manage to keep a lot of not good stuff out of the system. But by now there is a lot of not good stuff that is in the system and which cannot be removed because of this same process.

At some point, and it may take a very long time (look how long it took Catholicism) church will need to create adequate space for its scholars and lay theologians.

Ben M.

[volgadon]

Wow. That's sort of a weird belief. Its not a Mormon D&D thing but I would sort of like to know how they come to that conclusion.

A reactionary response to the challenge and crisis of modernity, sort of sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring anything new as it might pose a danger to your way of life. The rise in education during the 19th c. was considered such a threat that only the drastic measure of forbidden all innovations would work, even if in and of itself the innovation was in harmony with current teachings. The phrase itself coopted a non-related talmudic discussion about a biblical verse on grain.

[David Bokovoy]

On the other issue, there is this other interesting aspect - much of what has been produced as recent good scholarship in the realm of Mormon studies has come outside of BYU and outside of the NAMI.

And it would appear that this will continue to be the trend for the near future.

To those who maintain that serious academic study of scripture erodes faith, I would recommend considering the following quote:

"Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah's ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-'Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.' Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. 'Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh.' So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud "the simple faith;" which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence- this plea in bar of effort-"thus far and no farther.” Seventy’s Course of Theology, 5:1-2.

Edited June 27, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[CASteinman]

The phrase itself coopted a non-related talmudic discussion about a biblical verse on grain.

Kinda reminds me of Jesus' complaints about gnats and camels.

I am not asking as a challenge, but could you please direct me to a link where I could read more? I understand it might not be on the internet, but while I am curious (sort of like passing a train wreck) I am not so interested I would go out and buy a book! But if there is something on the internet I would like to read it.

[Judd]

In spite of the fact that his post has been deleted from the thread, I would like to thank Brother Judd for his concern, but set him at ease that I am quite calm and have no need of medication.

All is well. And I have no doubt that improvements will be made in all these areas of concern, and that Dr. Peterson will continue to have a strong voice in LDS studies.

David, my post was actually referring to someone else.

[Bob Crockett]

Losing Dr. Peterson will come with a heavy price. Dr. Peterson is responsible for contributing some of the most interesting observations on the Book of Mormon that the Maxwell Institute has published, including articles that explore possible Book of Mormon allusions to the Northwest Semitic goddess Asherah, as well as issues connected with Nephite kingship and authority.

There are a number of things wrong, at least in my limited view, with the opening post.

Let’s take “Nephi and his Asherah” as a primary example. This was, in my view, a masterfully written and insightful piece, and one of the Review’s best works. I’m in the process of writing a blog piece about the loss of the Review and this article will be front and center. But, this article demonstrates what went wrong with the MI and the Review.

Dr. Peterson in “Asherah” combined cutting-edge Semitic scholarship with Latter-day Saint notions of a mother in heaven to generate a thesis that, in my mind, is unsupportable from traditional Latter-day Saint views of the scriptures. Dr. Peterson draws upon the arguments of feminist/atheist scholar William Dever, the latter of whom argues essentially that the Hebrew Old Testament is really a cover-up of what the Israelites really practiced, and that was a cultic worship of a fertility goddess, whose names include “Asherah.” What troubled me deeply about this article, and the fact that many LDS scholars jumped on the atheistic bandwagon playing trombones for feminism, is that the Dever is not without his substantial detractors. Basically, the tension between Dever and his substantial detractors, which is whether Yahweh really existed to give revelation and to denounce His competitors, is something “Nephi and his Asherah” completely overlooks. What makes Dever so formidable is that he has made the transition from the academic press to the popular press (Dever, “Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel” (2005, ISBN-13: 978-0802828521), something his rabbinical and other competitors have been unable to do.

So, “Nephi and his Asherah” is an archetype for the conflict between BYU’s mission for religious education, on the one hand, and cutting-edge Hebrew and New Testament scholarship, on the other hand, the latter of which is often atheistic. My experience with Claremont and Dr. Bushman showed me there that most of the budding young scholars there in the New Testament program are, indeed, atheists. I don’t condemn that, but it shows where scholarship in many of the journals lies.

But, what was most confusing to me was the combination of this scholarship at MI/Review with a jaunty defense of the LDS faith. And, indeed, when the atheistic Hebrew and New Testament scholars make certain points about the Holy Scriptures, LDS scholars often say, “AH HAH! Moroni (and Isaiah) were right!”

BYU is ill-equipped to have its scholars undertake this marriage, and to some this marriage might be disturbing.

BYU’s Religion Department and all of BYU’s Departments were shaken up in the Holland administration to blend religious instruction with the secular departments. This caused a number of secular scholars to complain about a lack of academic freedom, and some to leave. Whereas I might have had my doubts about such a decision, because it flew so strongly in the face of the usual way universities were run, I could see that the Board of Trustees had their own views of how BYU should be run. BYU’s reorganization stemmed from a review of BYU’s role in the early 1980s when the Board was contemplating spinning off the institution as the Church had spinned off its hospitals. The thinking then was that tithing dollars were being disproportionately spent to benefit white Wasatch Front children. But polling, conducted by Richard Wirthlin, revealed some remarkable things, and that was that the single most significant factor in predicting faithful adherence to the Church was not attending seminary, serving a mission or having LDS parents. It was whether a person had had a Church education. At this point, and inexorably so, the Board of Trustees has moved towards an expansion of educational opportunities (expansion of BYU-Provo; the PEF; growth of the Institutes; conversion of Ricks to BYU-I; proposed massive expansion of BYU-SLC; as well as brief exploratory looks at BYU-California).

The Department of Religion exists to educate college students about their religion and, secondarily, to educate seminary and institute teachers. It exists to buttress the secular education throughout the rest of the University. It does not exist to provide graduate degrees in theology or Church History, or to create theologians or New Testament scholars. This is not Berkeley’s GTU. The David Bokovoys of the world are not going to want to teach at BYU, as the type of publication pressure that might exist in the Department of Computer Science does not exist in the Department of Religion.

The David Bokovoys of the world are going to view the Department of Religion condescendingly, with lots of justification. I recall as a young freshman taking a class in the Book of Mormon from a recently-returned mission president who had no more ability to teach the Book of Mormon than a typical returned missionary and, in my view, less so. I was astounded by this good brother’s lack of preparation and inspiration, but the rest of my freshman experience at BYU was terrific. Further, I loved Monte Nyman’s class on Isaiah, but he was no religious academic.

I recall consulting with my grandfather, who was a long-time Academic VP of BYU and a one-year President of BYU in the 1960s. I told him that I was interested in a degree from BYU in religious scholarship or Church History. He said, "Don't you dare do that. BYU doesn't pretend to offer that expertise nor will it ever." So, I decided to worship Mammon instead.

I come back to “Nephi and his Asherah.” This is not, at least as an archetype, what is wanted or needed in the Department of Religion.

The MI has indicated, I suppose, that it will be headed in a different direction. “Our areas of endeavor include the study of LDS scripture and other religious texts and related fields of religious scholarship, including the burgeoning field of Mormon studies.” This doesn’t say much, really, but I imagine the MI will focus upon the study of Mormonism, rather than a defense of the faith using atheism and feminism and other bohemian practices some might favor.

The only ones who remain are instructors in BYU’s Religious Education departments of Ancient Scripture and Church History and Doctrine.

Quite so, and quite revealing. Back to BYU’s original mission, I’d say.

Perhaps they are the ones who

will now move the work forward into increased academic prestige? . . . Historically, the contributions of BYU’s religion professors to FARMS and the Maxwell Institute have been trivial at best. . . . And this lack of scholarship is by design.

During the Holland administration, this wasn’t the objective of the Board of Trustees – “academic prestige” for the Department. Now, grant you, people who teach in the Department may have their own personal ambition to publish and become famous, but that is not the Department’s objective.

So, in review, I will miss the MI/Review for what it was. But none of this is surprising.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bob Crockett