What Has The New Farms Produced?

[Kristian]

So, as I said, systematic dismantling and contraction.

The contraction began almost a decade ago under Noel Reynolds, who realized that it was no longer (and never really was) feasible to operate the Institute with strategic deficit year on year. Since that time we have been trying desperately to work within our means. Through a combination of natural attrition and Reduction in Force decisions (all painfully and reluctantly made), we are almost there. I may be next up for the chopping block - you never know. Syriac is not all that important after all.

[Daniel Peterson]

There was once a plan to raise a substantial endowment in order to cover Maxwell Institute expenses. It had the enthusiastic backing of a committed development council. There was a real commitment to cultivating donors and soliciting funds. Has that been abandoned?

Will there be any fundraising for METI? Or should I undertake that on my own?

[Kristian]

There was once a plan to raise a substantial endowment in order to cover Maxwell Institute expenses. It had the enthusiastic backing of a committed development council. There was a real commitment to cultivating donors and soliciting funds. Has that been abandoned?

Will there be any fundraising for METI? Or should I undertake that on my own?

Still committed to cultivating donors and raising funds (thanks to the great work of Ed Snow, who leads this effort). Still committed to raising funds for the METI endowment (Morgan and Ed are leading the charge on this).

[Daniel Peterson]

Are you no longer the director of advancement?

Do I get to participate in the fundraising for METI? Will that be permitted?

[Kristian]

Are you no longer the director of advancement?

Do I get to participate in the fundraising for METI? Will that be permitted?

No. I stepped aside so that Ed could get on with the job he was doing very well anyway. I still help with hosting, and speaking, but no title required.

As for your involvement, it is hoped for - prayed for even. We have all kinds of LDS donors that we want to approach about supporting METI, and we will continue to go after foundation funds in the US, Europe and Middle East. This is such a good project that I feel a little ashamed that we have not raised the funds already (what is this, year 17?).

[blackstrap]

I wonder if the fundraising pamphlets and other promotional materials will be open and transparent about the recent problematic history of the Institute , or will it ignore those issues in an attempt to relieve donors of as much cash as possible before they realize they have be lied to.

PS: tongue firmly in cheek )

Edited February 12, 2013 by blackstrap

[Bill Hamblin]

No. I stepped aside so that Ed could get on with the job he was doing very well anyway. I still help with hosting, and speaking, but no title required.

As for your involvement, it is hoped for - prayed for even. We have all kinds of LDS donors that we want to approach about supporting METI, and we will continue to go after foundation funds in the US, Europe and Middle East. This is such a good project that I feel a little ashamed that we have not raised the funds already (what is this, year 17?).

Yes, Dan's participation is so strongly sought for that Bradford kicked him out of his office, does not invite him to administrative meetings, won't let him go to fund raising meetings, and won't talk to Dan. The new administrative model of NAMIRS.

[Kristian]

Yes, Dan's participation is so strongly sought for that Bradford kicked him out of his office, does not invite him to administrative meetings, won't let him go to fund raising meetings, and won't talk to Dan. The new administrative model of NAMIRS.

Rest assured Bill, that Dan's departure caused hefty amounts of havoc (as he intended) among our subscribers, donors and staff. It's been tough to fill the void. In some ways the void will never be filled. For example, I'm not sure that the kind of academic research that most of us do is quite so attractive to donors as commercial apologetics (you fund, we defend). Nonetheless, the Institute was always more than Dan (as Dan no doubt will be the first to note).

[Kristian]

Let me add one more points:

I am sorry Dan was dismissed as the editor of the review in the way he was. I want to say that publicly and without reservation. It was (in my opinion) a managerial blunder that caused great pain to a great-hearted man. I called Dan from Rome when he was in Switzerland and said as much to him, and tried to effect some sort of reconciliation after Dan sent his resignation letter. I'm sure I sound flippant and dismissive in my posts (part of the game it seems to me), but please believe me when I say that I feel nothing but sorry about the pain Dan suffered over this dismissal, and everyone I've spoken to at the Maxwell Institute feels the same way. I wanted to say that so we can talk about the issues that remain. I don't want you, Dan or anyone else to think that I am anything other than saddened by the visceral blow dished out to Dan by his dismissal from the Review.

[Kristian]

Classic FARMS though... I'd be happy to engage in a thread entirely devoted to the merits and limits of the classic Farms approach to scripture.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rest assured Bill, that Dan's departure caused hefty amounts of havoc (as he intended) among our subscribers, donors and staff. It's been tough to fill the void. In some ways the void will never be filled. For example, I'm not sure that the kind of academic research that most of us do is quite so attractive to donors as commercial apologetics (you fund, we defend). Nonetheless, the Institute was always more than Dan (as Dan no doubt will be the first to note).

And who's fault is that? Bradford's.

At any rate, what you are saying is that the Syriac and Arabic stuff has always been parasitic on the FARMS scholarship and fundraising, and now that you have gutted classic FARMS, no one wants to donate money anymore. This was, of course completely predicable.

[Bill Hamblin]

Classic FARMS though... I'd be happy to engage in a thread entirely devoted to the merits and limits of the classic Farms approach to scripture.

In other words the new regime does not like classic FARMS. That's obvious.

On the other hand it's too bad that neither you, nor Carl, nor Morgan, nor Jerry have ever written a single apologetic article among the lot of you to show the rest of us how apologetics should have been done.

[DavidB]

my daddy can beat-up your daddy.....

Edited February 12, 2013 by DavidB

[Bill Hamblin]

Rest assured Bill, that Dan's departure caused hefty amounts of havoc (as he intended) among our subscribers, donors and staff. It's been tough to fill the void. In some ways the void will never be filled. For example, I'm not sure that the kind of academic research that most of us do is quite so attractive to donors as commercial apologetics (you fund, we defend). Nonetheless, the Institute was always more than Dan (as Dan no doubt will be the first to note).

Lets clarify something. Dan didn't intend to depart. He was fired. So he could hardly have intended his departure to cause havoc, since he had no intention to depart. Whatever havoc that has occurred and void that has been created, it is entirely the fault of the Bradford regime.

[Kristian]

And who's fault is that? Bradford's.

At any rate, what you are saying is that the Syriac and Arabic stuff has always been parasitic on the FARMS scholarship and fundraising, and now that you have gutted classic FARMS, no one wants to donate money anymore. This was, of course completely predicable.

Not true actually. Gratefully there have been several generous and highly valued donors who are actually interested in the Syriac projects and in METI for their own sake. In fact, the last major donation to FARMS was given after a trip to the Vatican and Herculaneum. These are complementary not competing activities.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me add one more points:

I am sorry Dan was dismissed as the editor of the review in the way he was. I want to say that publicly and without reservation. It was (in my opinion) a managerial blunder that caused great pain to a great-hearted man. I called Dan from Rome when he was in Switzerland and said as much to him, and tried to effect some sort of reconciliation after Dan sent his resignation letter. I'm sure I sound flippant and dismissive in my posts (part of the game it seems to me), but please believe me when I say that I feel nothing but sorry about the pain Dan suffered over this dismissal, and everyone I've spoken to at the Maxwell Institute feels the same way. I wanted to say that so we can talk about the issues that remain. I don't want you, Dan or anyone else to think that I am anything other than saddened by the visceral blow dished out to Dan by his dismissal from the Review.

I'm sure that's true. But I note that you don't object to the fact Dan was fired, only to the grossly unprofessional way he was fired. (And who with a modicum of ethical sense doesn't object to that?)

At any rate, life has taught me that some people are more loyal to friends who have been betrayed and slandered than others.

[Kristian]

Lets clarify something. Dan didn't intend to depart. He was fired. So he could hardly have intended his departure to cause havoc, since he had no intention to depart. Whatever havoc that has occurred and void that has been created, it is entirely the fault of the Bradford regime.

So are you saying that the months of dissing the Institute is Jerry's fault. Did you say to yourself when you sat to down to write your six month retrospective, "Jerry is making me do this." Come on Bill, take some responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise, put a big banner atop the interpreter site thanking Jerry Bradford who made all this possible.

[Bill Hamblin]

Not true actually. Gratefully there have been several generous and highly valued donors who are actually interested in the Syriac projects and in METI for their own sake. In fact, the last major donation to FARMS was given after a trip to the Vatican and Herculaneum. These are complementary not competing activities.

So you're telling me that donations have not collapsed in the wake of the debacle?

I'm sure that some people are interested in those things. I am quite dubious that they are enough to sustain the new regime. We shall see.

[Kristian]

I'm new to this board - have these issues been discussed before?

[Bill Hamblin]

So are you saying that the months of dissing the Institute is Jerry's fault. Did you say to yourself when you sat to down to write your six month retrospective, "Jerry is making me do this." Come on Bill, take some responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise, put a big banner atop the interpreter site thanking Jerry Bradford who made all this possible.

Oh yes, my dozens of readers have brought down the MI. You grossly overestimate my influence.

[Kristian]

In other words the new regime does not like classic FARMS. That's obvious.

On the other hand it's too bad that neither you, nor Carl, nor Morgan, nor Jerry have ever written a single apologetic article among the lot of you to show the rest of us how apologetics should have been done.

I'm not an apologist. I have a different temperament. I certainly intend to write on LDS texts over the next few years. However, I don't value the apologetic imperatives. There is a great deal to be said about our texts that is enlightening and faith-promoting but that doesn't require us to be polemical. Apologetics to me means allowing someone else to decide what I should be interested in. Sorry, not interested. Now, if the Hymn on the Soul or the Odes of Solomon become the crux of some apologetic debate, then just whistle and I'll be there.

[Kristian]

Oh yes, my dozens of readers have brought down the MI. You grossly overestimate my influence.

Hopefully Carl's post helped disabuse you of any notion that the Institute has been brought down! I actually think there is more excitement and enthusiasm than there has ever been for the work of the Institute. We've got a new website coming on line in a couple of months, we've got great material in the pipeline for the journals, exciting research projects underway by the resident scholars, and so on. I'm only posting here because I'm tired of you and Dan etc telling other people about an Institute that you clearly know nothing about. Intellectually, you are still living in the 90s!

[Bill Hamblin]

So are you saying that the months of dissing the Institute is Jerry's fault. Did you say to yourself when you sat to down to write your six month retrospective, "Jerry is making me do this." Come on Bill, take some responsibility for your own actions. Otherwise, put a big banner atop the interpreter site thanking Jerry Bradford who made all this possible.

Lets make something clear. I have Blogged about the situation at MI about half a dozen times when the scandal broke, mainly to defend Dan from slander and to explain why I believe the coup was a fundamental betrayal of classic FARMS. I blogged once again in a six month retrospect. I have not spent months dissing the Institute. I generally ignore it.

Actually, in my speech at the Interpreter banquet I did thank Jerry, saying, "I'd like to thank Jerry Bradford, for without his help none of us would be here tonight."

[Kristian]

I note that you don't object to the fact Dan was fired

I'm not unhappy that the Review is moving in a different direction. Part of me thinks that could have been done with Dan at the helm, however, the overwhelming feedback we got, even from friends of Dan, was that the change of direction was a good thing. I'm not sure you'll be happy (even I'm not enough of an optimist to aspire to the lofty goal of making you happy), but I think many people will find the new review to be a vibrant and vital publication.

[Kristian]

Lets make something clear. I have Blogged about the situation at MI about half a dozen times when the scandal broke, mainly to defend Dan from slander and to explain why I believe the coup was a fundamental betrayal of classic FARMS. I blogged once again in a six month retrospect. I have not spent months dissing the Institute. I generally ignore it.

Actually, in my speech at the Interpreter banquet I did thank Jerry, saying, "I'd like to thank Jerry Bradford, for without his help none of us would be here tonight."

Amen! Reminds me of one of my Syriac texts, in which Joseph meets Potiphar's wife after becoming regent, and rewards her with gifts for making it all possible.