"Mormon Studies"--Commenting On Bill Hamblins Essay

[zerinus]

Bill Hamblin asked me to comment on his PDF essay on “Mormon Studies” that he had published in his blog, in this thread which he had started on the subject of Mormon Studies. As that thread looked as though it was likely to be shut down, I have decided to post my reply in a new thread.

Well, you've misunderstood, but what can I do? Lot's of people have understood me correctly. Why don't you quote the specific phrases from the essay that you think justify your claims.

Okay, I have converted your PDF essay into a Word file so I can comment on the whole thing. What follows is the complete text of your essay (typed in quotes), with my comments added. I will try to keep my comments short, as your essay is already long, and also to let your essay speak for itself.

I don’t think that I had misunderstood what you wrote. I don’t think that it is easy to misunderstand.

The latest fad in the LDS blogosphere is the praise of “Mormon studies.” Many have extolled Mormon studies as the wave of the future, that will bring a new golden age which will somehow at last spread enlightenment about Mormonism both within the Church and throughout the nation. In my opinion, these hopes are grossly overly optimistic. Here’s why.

It is obvious from your opening paragraph that you are being rather contemptuous of “Mormon Studies;” and the remainder of the text carries on in the same vain:

First, a little background. I need to point out that I do religious studies professionally, though not Mormon studies. I regularly attend academic conferences on religious studies. Most recently I gave a presentation on “The Temple in the Qur’ān” in Dublin in May 2012. My most recent book is on religious studies, Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History. I own, for example, over three hundred books on India and Hinduism which I’ve purchased purely for personal interest, since I don’t publish in that field. I have nothing against religious studies; quite the contrary, I enjoy reading, researching, and publishing on religion. However, I do recognize a number of serious problems with the discipline. Religious studies does a number of things very well, and a number of things rather poorly. But more on this in a moment.

Another thing to note is that, despite numerous claims to the contrary, apologetics is not what’s wrong with Mormon studies.

I am not aware that anyone has made that claim. Can you give some references?

There has never been anything preventing anyone from doing any type of Mormon studies in any way they want. The fact that some Mormon scholars happen to think apologetics is an important and legitimate field of scholarship in no way prevents other scholars from doing non-apologetic Mormon studies.

I am sure that is the case.

There seems to be a delusion among some that, since Dan Peterson’s oppressive influence has at last been removed from the Maxwell Institute, Mormon studies can now finally flourish in the way that it always should have but has been prevented by Dan’s ominous specter. This is sheer nonsense. Apologetics has never prevented Mormon studies from flourishing.

Perhaps you have got the wrong end of the stick here. Perhaps the problem is not with “Mormon apologetics” as such, but with the kind or quality of “Mormon Apologetics” that was being done. Nearly two years ago Dan published a short essay in Deseret News about his longer “apologetics” article about the “Asherah” thing published by MI, and a couple of threads was started about it here. In those threads I tried to criticize his Asherah article, but met with stiff resistance from the administration, so that in the end I was obliged to publish my criticism of his article in my Blog, which you can read here. Now I think that is a very poor kind of “Mormon apologetics,”—and hence of “Mormon Studies” (and unworthy of BYU or MI). People who are locked into that kind of thinking, and producing that kind of “apologetics literature,” will not be able to make a positive contribution to “Mormon Studies”. The problem was not with “Mormon apologetics,” but with the kind and quality of apologetics work that was being done; and more importantly, the kind of “mindset” it represented that prevented it from making a useful contribution to genuine “Mormon Studies”—and I should hasten to add that this in no way detracts from Dan’s scholarly contributions in his field of speciality, which is Arabic and Islamic studies. We can’t all be good at everything.

If Mormon studies has not flourished it is more likely because few people cared, and few did it well.

Very likely, and mostly for the reasons stated above.

In this regard it perplexes me why some people object to scholars who do apologetics. If they don’t like apologetics, they don’t have to do it. They don’t even have to read it. They can, in fact, completely ignore it. I, for example, consistently ignore the latest insights in pediatric medicine. But it would be absurd for me to argue that we must stop pediatric medical research in order to allow brain surgery to flourish. I say, let a thousand flowers bloom! If some want to do Mormon studies, let them. If others prefer apologetics, so be it.

As I said above, the problem was not with “apologetics” as such, but with the way it was being done, and the kind of mindset it represented. That mindset had to be changed in order to move on to quality “Mormon Studies;” and if it required drastic surgery for it to be done, so be it.

We also must note that, despite the fond wishes of many critics, LDS apologetics is not going away. The fact that the director of the Maxwell Institute has decided to no longer allow the Institute or its employees to publish LDS apologetics will, in the long run, not even put a small dent in the effort. At most it may briefly delay the appearance of a few studies. Anyone who thinks LDS apologetics is finished, is, to put it nicely—and I really, really want to be nice—grossly deluded. Mormon apologetics has existed since the founding of the Church, and it will continue to flourish even after Dan Peterson is dead—may that day be far from us! So, don’t expect your friendly neighborhood apologist to be silenced by inept bureaucratic decree any time soon.

You have got the wrong end of the stick again. It is not the Mormon apologetics that was being done, but the kind and quality of it, and the mindset under which it flouirished.

Now, to my views on Mormon studies as a subset of religious studies, for what they’re worth.

I don’t see Mormon Studies as a subset of religious studies. Mormon studies is not (and need not be) exclusively “religious,” any more than Islamic studies (for example) is or needs to be exclusively religious.

First, we need to note the strong, even overwhelming secular bias in religious studies. There are a wide range of reasons for this, which are too complicated to discuss here, but it is widely recognized in the field. Fundamentally, religious studies examines religion as a human phenomena, with the (often unspoken) assumption that religious belief and practice is entirely explainable without positing the existence of God or his intervention in human history and life. This is a self-imposed limitation on the discipline, in which it is mimicking, rather poorly, the empiricism and materialism of the natural sciences. This assumption makes some sense in some ways, since religion is indeed an integral part of of all human societies and cultures, and can be studied by examining its human context and its impact on human cultures, societies, and individuals.

However, this secularist assumption also presents a drastic, even fatal limitation to the study of religion. Imagine a scholar of Beethoven, who studies his life, German society of his age, the physics of the instruments of the period, the qualities of the ink and paper on which he wrote his scores, but never bothers to actually listen to Beethoven’s music. Or an art historian who studies every detail of the tools Michelangelo used to sculpt and paint, but never actually looks at his art. Or a scholar who knows everything about the relationship of Dante and the medieval Florence, but has never read the Divine Comedy. It would be obvious to everyone that there is a fundamental failure in that method which would tarnish its results. We study the historical and cultural contexts of the great musicians, artists and poets in order to better understand their music, art and poetry. If we never listen to their music, or gaze upon their art, or read their poetry, we have missed the essential core of their achievements, however much we have learned about the peripheries. And this, I believe, is the fundamental flaw in religious studies. It examines everything about religion but its essence—the encounter between God and mankind. From the perspective of secular religious studies, religion is “spilled poetry”—to use the striking words of Harold Bloom—when in reality it should be described as “spilled divinity.” This problem means that secular religious studies will always fail to grasp the essence of religion. For if God really does exist, and really does intervene in history, and really is the ultimate cause of religion, then removing God from the discussion means that everything religious studies has to say about religion is at best warped and twisted, and at worst, fundamentally misguided and wrong. On the other hand, if God does not exist and religion is entirely of human origin, then the secular assumptions of religious studies is merited and necessary. However, the so-called “bracketing” of questions about God and the truth-claims of a religion does not in fact create a neutral environment which facilitates the objective study of religion. Rather in inherently biases study of religion in favor of secular presuppositions. And, when dealing with religion, the ultimate questions ignored by secular religious studies are the truly important ones. Otherwise, the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith are mere rantings in a madhouse.

Here you are basically arguing that “Mormon studies” (as you understand it) is going to be “bad” for Mormonism because it is inherently “Godless” (secular/irreligious). My point is that that need not be true. Mormon Studies (however secular it might be) need no more be “bad” for Mormonism than (secular) “Islamic” studies has been bad for Islam, or “Hindu” studies has been bad for Hinduism.

Another serious problem with religious studies is that it tends to privilege etic (outsider) vs. emic (insider) discourse—a methodological problem long recognized by scholars. That is, religious studies tend to create explanatory models that make sense to non-believers (religious studies scholars) rather than believers. This, I fear, is an inevitable consequence of the nature and methods of religious studies. Personally, I find it much more interesting to read a book by a believing Hindu than to read a book by a secular scholar about Hinduism. On the other hand, there is certainly a place for both approaches. The goal of a religious studies scholar should be to describe a religion in a way that believers who read his book will truthfully respond, “That’s exactly right. That’s what I believe.” Unfortunately, religious studies scholars in general, and Mormon studies specifically, regularly fail to do this. Their works too often leave the believer puzzled, wondering how there could be another religion called Mormonism which is so fundamentally different from the religion the believer knows and practices and loves. While non-Mormons can certainly study Mormonism and offer whatever insights they may have, we as Mormons would be very unwise to allow ourselves to be defined by the assumptions and dictates of Mormon studies. While it may be useful to look at yourself in a mirror to see yourself as others see you, it is insanity to believe that you really are the reflection in the mirror.

Here you are making more or less the same argument as in your previous paragraph, that “Mormon Studies” is going to be “bad” for Mormonism because it is inherently “academic,” and consequently inherently “irreligious”. I don’t agree. The fact that the “academic” approach necessitates leaving the “supernatural” out of the study of religion, does not make it a worthless exercise. The academic world is inevitably going to approach religion in that way whether we like it or not. The only choice we have is whether to become active participants in that field of study, or be spectators, and watch it from the sidelines. If we can make a positive contribution (which I think we can), then we should be participants in that field of study, rather than be spectators—and we cannot do it successfully without first shedding some of the incorrect “apologetics” baggage that we have been carrying. If MI can’t do that with the old “apologetics” team, because they are too stuck in their old ways to catch the vision, then replacing them may be the only option.

This problem is related to the pretense of objectivity that we sometimes still hear bandied about. Non-Mormon religious studies scholars are objective—so the argument goes—while Mormon scholars are biased. Therefore, only non-Mormon scholars can really explain Mormonism. Only when Mormon scholars ape the assumptions and conclusions of non-Mormons can they be considered scholarly. If they fail to submit, they are cast off into the dustbin of “apologetics.” This issue has been argued to death, and I don’t want to repeat it here.

Who has “argued” that way? References please.

The reality is that both non-Mormons and Mormons are biased in their study of Mormonism in their own way. The proper path forward is for everyone to recognize and admit their biases. In my opinion, if anyone tells you that he is objective about your religion while you are not, he either doesn’t understand the ontological and epistemological nature of the question of objectivity, or he is engaged in deceitful posturing in an attempt to privilege his discourse and silence yours. As a general rule you shouldn’t trust someone who feels she needs to tell you how objective she is, any more than you should trust a used car salesman who feels compelled to tell you how honest she is. Caveat emptor.

If your bottom line is that Mormon Studies is going to be “bad” for Mormonism, I disagree.

Continued . . . /

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Another scandal also afflicts religious studies. People who are not professional religious studies scholars would undoubtedly be shocked to find the magnitude of sheer nincompoopery that passes itself off as serious academic scholarship at the annual national meeting of the American Academy of Religion. It’s really breathtaking to watch political correctness run amok in the academy. (My favorite example was a session on “Eco-feminism, food and pets.” I’m not making this up.) That’s not to say that there aren’t many splendid, insightful, and brilliant papers given at academic conferences on religion. The reality is, however, that academics practicing religious studies have proven unable to govern their discipline and establish sufficient methodological rigor to weed out the nonsense. Having failed to govern their own house, it would seem unwise to make them the sole arbiters of what is or is not rigorous scholarship about Mormonism. The claims, methods and assumptions of religious studies should not be above criticism. A related problem is that religious studies is an arcane and complicated discipline that requires a great deal of background knowledge to understand. Its appeal will inherently be limited to academics talking to themselves. Academic discourse is, of course, important. I do it all the time. But it is not the purpose of religion.

I have no comments to make on this. I will let others comment.

Be that as it may, the real problem with Mormon studies is that there is no such thing. There are no programs or degrees in Mormon studies—not even at BYU. There is no professional Journal of Mormon Studies (No, Sunstone and Dialogue don’t count. And while there are excellent journals of Mormon history, the study of Mormon religion is related, but still distinct.) There are few classes taught in major universities on the subject. Mormonism is generally taught, if it is taught at all, by a non-specialist as a small portion of classes on “American Religion” or “New Religious Movements.” As far as I am aware, no class on the Book of Mormon has ever been taught anywhere in the world outside of LDS universities. (I may be wrong; if someone knows of any please let me know.) This can be compared to almost every major university in the country offering classes on the Bible, the Qur’an, etc. Unlike biblical studies, Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, early Christian studies, Catholic studies, Hinduism, etc., no one in the world can actually major or do graduate work in Mormon studies. It simply doesn’t exist. How can you possibly envision Mormon studies as an academic field if there are no classes taught anywhere other than BYU on the Book of Mormon? Ask yourself this: what is the best study on the Book of Mormon written by a non-Mormon? Are there any at all?

I think others have pointed out that there is such a thing, and it is likely to increase and not diminish as Mormonism becomes more prominent in society, and more people begin to take notice of it. Who would have guessed fifty years ago that there would be a Mormon candidate for the Presidency of the United States? (Whether he wins or loses is irrelevant.)

The closest approximation to a Mormon studies program is at Claremont. But a university cannot have a serious Mormon studies program with only one professor of Mormonism, which is all we find in the Claremont School of Religion (http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1036.asp). A real Mormon studies program would require at least a dozen faculty who specialize in Mormonism, paralleling Brandeis’ Jewish Studies program, which has twenty-four faculty in Bible, Hebrew, and Jewish Studies. Where can we find a Mormon studies program like Brandeis’ Jewish Studies program? Nowhere.

Others have already commented on that.

I also doubt that any serious university support for Mormon studies will be forthcoming anytime in the near future. This is in part due to the recession, and in part do to the rising costs of universities, which are greatly outpacing inflation. Universities simply don’t have the funding or the will to create such new specialized programs. The national trend in academia is in fact to shut down such specialized programs and shift their resources towards high enrollment general education and major classes, not to create new expensive special programs with limited appeal.

I will let others comment.

Furthermore, for the most part, only Mormons—or their marginalized and ex-Mormons counterparts—actually do Mormon studies. Mormon studies is not something you can pick up in a few months or even a few years of cursory reading. Mormon studies now requires full-time specialization. The fact of the matter is that, up until now, there simply have not bee enough interested non-Mormons willing to devote the time and study necessary to master the field. Ask yourself: who are the top ten non-Mormon scholars on Mormon religion? What are the top ten journals of Mormon religion? Where are the top ten schools one would attend to study Mormon religion? What are the top ten graduate programs on Mormon religion? When somebody can fill this list, then we can start talking about Mormon studies in a serious way. Until then, I remain neither optimistic nor enthusiastic about the immediate future of Mormon studies. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but right now I am highly skeptical.

Ditto.

[Benjamin McGuire]

There seems to be a rather large gap over the idea of religious studies in general that probably ought to be addressed.

"Religious Studies" is not some ambiguous umbrella under which all thing religious get thrown. In fact, those in the field try very carefully to distinguish between the study of religions and religious study. If we turn to a somewhat neutral source (wikipedia) the field of religious studies has a very distinct definition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies ):

Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.

While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such as deities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion.

This is pretty standard fare. Note the several main features - it is secular, multi-disciplinary, and the attempt is made to study religious behavior from outside of any particular religious viewpoint. All points that I raised in the other thread.

And work involving theology, a particular religious viewpoint, judgments about truth claims, and so on - these works are not part of the field of Religious Studies.

Now, these various disciplines that are used within Religious Studies have their own terminology, definitions, methods, and so on. There is a body of literature devoted specifically to this issue. There are plenty of recognized scholars, and scholarly works. So, there is a field of Religious Studies which is rather narrow, does not include perhaps most of what is written about religion and in particular most of what is written by the religious.

Now why is this of interest when we talk about Mormon Studies? Zerinus in his OP writes this:

I don’t see Mormon Studies as a subset of religious studies. Mormon studies is not (and need not be) exclusively “religious,” any more than Islamic studies (for example) is or needs to be exclusively religious.

Now here we run into a challenge. Because if you don't accept this basic premise, everything you have to add to Bill Hamblin's short essay comes from a perspective that Bill isn't speaking to. But it also seems very problematic in light of the issues under the microscope at the Maxwell Institute. Because, Gerald Bradford doesn't agree with you Zerinus. And that issue is part of the crux of the problem here.

Lest anyone doesn't know, Bradford has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of California Santa Barbara. This means that when he talks about Religious Studies, he is discussing a very specific thing. And when he writes an essay titled "The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia" and in it speaks of Religious Studies, then he is also speaking to a very specific sort of academic discourse. So when Gerald Bradford tells us this:

Based on the view of religious studies that I have spelled out, I want to anticipate the kind of study of Mormonism likely to be pursued under the auspices of such programs. A perusal of titles in appendix 1 and an assessment of work that remains to be done reveals that this effort is far from being firmly entrenched. Furthermore, once this is achieved, even more work will need to be done before the benefits of investigating the religion this way are fully realized.

Gerald Bradford (and by extension the Maxwell Institute perhaps) certainly does envision Mormon Studies as a subset of Religious Studies. And I read Bill Hamblin's essay within the context of Bradford's vision at the Maxwell Institute.

Here you are basically arguing that “Mormon studies” (as you understand it) is going to be “bad” for Mormonism because it is inherently “Godless” (secular/irreligious). My point is that that need not be true. Mormon Studies (however secular it might be) need no more be “bad” for Mormonism than (secular) “Islamic” studies has been bad for Islam, or “Hindu” studies has been bad for Hinduism.

I think he was arguing that Mormon Studies as certain other people envision it (ala Gerald Bradford) will be bad for Mormonism. To trade off discussions of questions about the truth for secular studies meant to engage the academic world instead of believing Latter-day Saints, and to do so under the apparent informal approval of the church (via the Maxwell Institute) does not seem to me to be a wise move either. You are right, it might not make any difference. We could argue that apologetics likewise has made little difference.

Ben M.

[Bill Hamblin]

Once again, Ben gets it right.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Once again, Ben gets it right.

That is is because Ben really does not understand what is really going on.

[Damien the Leper]

That is is because Ben really does not understand what is really going on.

You make me smile Mola.

[zerinus]

There seems to be a rather large gap over the idea of religious studies in general that probably ought to be addressed.

"Religious Studies" is not some ambiguous umbrella under which all thing religious get thrown. In fact, those in the field try very carefully to distinguish between the study of religions and religious study. If we turn to a somewhat neutral source (wikipedia) the field of religious studies has a very distinct definition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies ):

This is pretty standard fare. Note the several main features - it is secular, multi-disciplinary, and the attempt is made to study religious behavior from outside of any particular religious viewpoint. All points that I raised in the other thread.

And work involving theology, a particular religious viewpoint, judgments about truth claims, and so on - these works are not part of the field of Religious Studies.

Now, these various disciplines that are used within Religious Studies have their own terminology, definitions, methods, and so on. There is a body of literature devoted specifically to this issue. There are plenty of recognized scholars, and scholarly works. So, there is a field of Religious Studies which is rather narrow, does not include perhaps most of what is written about religion and in particular most of what is written by the religious.

Now why is this of interest when we talk about Mormon Studies? Zerinus in his OP writes this:

Now here we run into a challenge. Because if you don't accept this basic premise, everything you have to add to Bill Hamblin's short essay comes from a perspective that Bill isn't speaking to. But it also seems very problematic in light of the issues under the microscope at the Maxwell Institute. Because, Gerald Bradford doesn't agree with you Zerinus. And that issue is part of the crux of the problem here.

Lest anyone doesn't know, Bradford has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of California Santa Barbara. This means that when he talks about Religious Studies, he is discussing a very specific thing. And when he writes an essay titled "The Study of Mormonism: A Growing Interest in Academia" and in it speaks of Religious Studies, then he is also speaking to a very specific sort of academic discourse. So when Gerald Bradford tells us this:

Gerald Bradford (and by extension the Maxwell Institute perhaps) certainly does envision Mormon Studies as a subset of Religious Studies. And I read Bill Hamblin's essay within the context of Bradford's vision at the Maxwell Institute.

Even by the "Wikipedia" standard which you relied on, "Mormon studies" is not a "subset of religious studies," any more than Islamic studies is, or Buddhist studies is. Here is a more complete quotation from Wikipedia, with my emphasis added in bold italics:

Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.

While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such as deities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion.

Religious studies originated in the nineteenth century, when scholarly and historical analysis of the Bible had flourished, and Hindu and Buddhist texts were first being translated into European languages. Early influential scholars included Friedrich Max Müller, in England, and Cornelius P. Tiele, in the Netherlands. Today religious studies is practiced by scholars worldwide. In its early years, it was known as Comparative Religion or the Science of Religion and, in the USA, there are those who today also know the field as the History of religion (associated with methodological traditions traced to the University of Chicago in general, and in particular Mircea Eliade, from the late 1950s through to the late 1980s). The field is known as Religionswissenschaft in Germany and Sciences de la religion in the French-speaking world.

Two things distinguishes that from something like "Mormon Studies" (or Islamic Studies etc.). Firstly it is strictly to do with religion; whereas "Islamic studies" (for example) is not strictly to do with religion. Secondly, "Religious studies" is not concerned with any particular religion, but with the phenomenon of religion as a whole (e.g. comparing religions); whereas "Mormon studies" (for example) is to do with Mormonism and nothing else. It is a fundamental logical and academic error to consider "Mormon Studies" (or Islamic Studies, or Hindu Studies etc.) as a "subset" of Religious Studies.

I think he was arguing that Mormon Studies as certain other people envision it (ala Gerald Bradford) will be bad for Mormonism. To trade off discussions of questions about the truth for secular studies meant to engage the academic world instead of believing Latter-day Saints, and to do so under the apparent informal approval of the church (via the Maxwell Institute) does not seem to me to be a wise move either. You are right, it might not make any difference. We could argue that apologetics likewise has made little difference.

I think that you are very wrong.

Edited August 3, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

LOP in the other thread pointed to another good critique of Hamblin's essay, which is worth reproducing here:

http://www.patheos.c...mormon-studies/

[Freedom]

I have read a lot of 'religious study' type of material and am considered among my circle of 7 friends to be an expert on the subject. I have found that, taking out religion, it is inherently flawed. But I find it a bit hypocritical of LDS apologists so use what I and Bill consider to be flawed as a weapon against critics. I question, for example, that the Israelites were polytheistic and became monotheistic. I believe, as the church teaches, that the source material would tell a very different story and that their doctrines would be more like our own. So to use this research to defend the LDS position is questionable.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to embrace this non-religious religious research to defend our position, we have to be willing to embrace the same research which will analyse our position from a secular perspective. It may serve to provide a perspective that is otherwise lacking.

I would also agree with zerinus that at least some of our apologetics is not very christian. Well, he did not say as much, but I think that is part of the problem he sees. Some of it is an argument just for the point of arguing be it every so far fetched. Some criticisms may hurt our feelings, but that does not mean we cannot acknowledge them as legitimate arguments. By paining all critics as ignorant we loose credibility. Perhaps we do not do this, but I sometimes am left with this impression.

[robuchan]

That awkward moment when you realize the MI will continue to do apologetics.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765594746/FAIR-Conference-ends-as-new-Mormon-scholarly-journal-begins.html

Peterson has been critical of the changes, which he says includes a significantly reduced emphasis on apologetic research. That is problematic, he says, because the Institute has been specifically charged with "describing and defending the Restoration."

Maxwell Institute officials disagree, indicating that widespread assumptions that "the change of editorship we have recently announced for the Mormon Studies Review signals some kind of fundamental rejection of apologetics is incorrect."

Oops.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think that you are very wrong.

Actually, since the subject is what I think--and I am the world's leading expert on what I think--I can say definitively that Ben is right about what I meant in my essay and you are very wrong.

[Bill Hamblin]

That awkward moment when you realize the MI will continue to do apologetics.

http://www.deseretne...nal-begins.html

Oops.

Well, we'll have to wait and see see.

Note the bureaucrat speak: not a "fundamental rejection of apologetics." That doesn't mean they are going to actively do apologetics, only they haven't completely rejected it. This is a classic non-denial denial. That, of course, could mean anything. Who is this official? Why did he refuse to be quoted by name?

And what do they mean by apologetics? Look at the new conference MI is sponsoring.

http://maxwellinstit...201&type=events

No Mormon scholars speaking. No direct reference to the BOM in the speeches. Is this apologetic? Well, in one sense you could say he illuminates Judean writing at the time of Lehi, so its apologetic.

I think this statement is a fundamental equivocation. By apologetics we mean direct response to the critics of the church. What does the unnamed source mean by apologetics? I suspect it is something entirely different. I suspect he means vaguely improving the image of LDS scholarship is apologetic.

Where are they going to publish apologetics? In the past it has always been in the Review. Now the review is gone. It has completely ceased publication. If it ever appears again--which I think is dubious--it will be in 18 months, according to reports. They have two dozen articles that were ready to be published, which they have now returned to their authors. Why throw away these articles, if they are planning to still do apologetics?

I have had numerous conversations with people who have had first hand discussions with Bradford. They all consistently agree that he does not like apologetics. Period. It is not about tone (he rarely bothers to actually read the articles). It is an ideological opposition to the very idea of apologetics. He wants to move the NAMI away from the old FARMS "shadow". Why would they all report this if Bradford actually wasn't saying it to them. Look at Bradford's manifesto of his vision of Mormon Studies--the one source where we actually get specific details about his views:

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=640

What is the role of apologetics in this vision? It simply isn't there.

Why have the changed the mission statements and names of things if they aren't planning a substantive change in direction? Compare the old and new mission statements. The differences are stark.

But we'll see. Unnamed bureaucrats--like politicians--say certain things to the press. What they actually do is what matters. If Bradford wanted to clarify the matter and make a strong, attributed, public statement regarding NAMI's forthright future support for traditional apologetics he could do so easily. That he has remained silent speaks volumes.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Calm]

That awkward moment when you realize the MI will continue to do apologetics.

http://www.deseretne...nal-begins.html

Oops.

Scott was kind enough to seek out background information on that quote which I find very interesting and relevant to your claim:

I asked Joe about it.

He said he obtained the quote in connection with an earlier story he did, the one that appeared on Thursday in advance of the FAIR Conference, headlined "Apologists gather, but not to apologize."

The Maxwell Institute was very reluctant to talk to him in connection with that article but eventually gave him the comment, not from Jerry Bradford and not for individual attribution to anyone in particular.

He did not find a place for it in his Thursday story, but when it came time to write the wrap-up on the FAIR Conference, there seemed to be a crying need for some sort of input from the MI folks. That was the only thing he had, so he went with it.

The hesitancy of the MI individual to even give this comment should probably result in a hesitancy to use the quote you gave as evidence that the MI is going to "continue to do apologetics". At best I see it as a refutation of the claim that there was some direction to reject apologetics from 'on high' (thus the use of the adjective "fundamental").