What Has The New Farms Produced?

[sethpayne]

Well have millions in funds raised for one project been diverted to another project?

Good grief.

Please don't buy into this nonsense.

University endowments are not piggy banks. Funds are tightly segmented and controlled. This accusation from Bill is as stupid as it is shameful.

[The Nehor]

You can't be serious. Are you really asking why a person should not try to undermine the activities of their current employer? Is the MI planning a terrorist attack? Are they trying to attempt a coup at 50 S Temple? No. They are going to publish scholarly articles regarding Mormon Studies and other things -- OH THE HORROR!!!

I don't think loyalty to an employer (BYU) that has provided you the ability to provide for the health and well-being of your family is too much to ask. I'm not saying BYU is beyond criticism. However, in an employee/employer relationship it is never wise accuse your employer of dishonesty and duplicity. I suppose that is the benefit of being tenured. You get to be a complete *** to BYU and its leadership and still keep your job.

I am dead serious. I did not think they were planning a terrorist attack but you jumping to that makes you seem overly defensive about it. What are you hiding?????

MI is not synonomous with BYU. As a comparison I have shown loyalty to employers in the past by pointing out the risks and idiocies being perpetuated within the company by others within it. We called it cutting off dead wood.

I am not surprised the current line at MI is to try to get people to stop pointing out what they have done and that loyalty is best shown by silence.

[The Nehor]

Good grief.

Please don't buy into this nonsense.

University endowments are not piggy banks. Funds are tightly segmented and controlled. This accusation from Bill is as stupid as it is shameful.

So you are broke then until you get some Mormon Studies donations?

[ERayR]

Good grief.

Please don't buy into this nonsense.

University endowments are not piggy banks. Funds are tightly segmented and controlled. This accusation from Bill is as stupid as it is shameful.

I know and I have seen the results of funds being diverted. Thus the reason for asking the question.

[William Schryver]

As far as I understand it, with the exception of the Gay Chair and the Willes Center, all large donations have gone to support the Institute in general. That means, those funds are used at the discretion of the Executive Director.

John is very fortunate to have his "ace in the hole," as it were.

And we, the "commoner consumers," are especially grateful that the Gay and Willes families have resisted efforts to divert those endowments to purposes other than those for which they were established.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good grief.

Please don't buy into this nonsense.

University endowments are not piggy banks. Funds are tightly segmented and controlled. This accusation from Bill is as stupid as it is shameful.

But Kristian just said that with two exceptions all funds are to be used at the discretion of the executive director.

[Calm]

But Kristian just said that with two exceptions all funds are to be used at the discretion of the executive director.

If it operates like a previous university my husband worked at, his area was great at getting funds due to attracting large amounts of donors among wealthy entrepreneurs...which is what his dept worked with and which was the area they wanted to help grow, however donations were to be given to the entire faculty and once in the hands of the powers that be, much of the money went into marketing and other depts. that the bosses favoured. Sometimes donations had to be shared with the entire university to balance out faculties that didn't get much donations because they had less wealthy donors then the Business faculty.

[Skylla]

Stick to the topic and stay away from personal attacks.

Skylla

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually Bill, you haven't been "there" for over a decade, so all of your information is way out of date. You're living in the past mate, pining for glorious days that bask in the golden light of your own selective memory.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. However, I am good friends with many of the principles, and know all of them. I am kept abreast in great detail about the happenings at MI.

[juliann]

It's good to see you here again, Blair! I was very pleased to hear of your new position.

[Daniel Peterson]

I suppose that one of the things that most bothers me about the events of the past eight months is that there was never a frank discussion of the differences over apologetics that are now so evident. Not only no frank discussion but no discussion at all. I can't think of any meeting of the Maxwell Institute leadership or faculty -- not, anyway, an open one to which I was invited (though I now understand that there were meetings of a kind of unannounced shadow organization within the organization, to which I was not privy) -- in which any of this was mentioned.

I knew, from a few passing remarks, that Carl Griffin didn't like (and didn't read) much of what the organization had produced over the previous twenty-five years, but it was only somewhere back in March or so that I learned (to my considerable surprise) where Morgan Davis stood, and it's been since then that I've come to understand Kristian's viewpoint. Gerald Bradford had never, ever, spoken to me about any of these things until our lengthy one-on-one meeting toward the end of May -- our last face-to-face encounter, and virtually our last communication -- and, even then, his agenda was, to me, pretty much inscrutable and his viewpoint rather veiled. I simply couldn't make it out, and I was really trying to grasp it. At the end of that exchange, all that I was clear on was that he didn't like Greg Smith and didn't want to publish Greg Smith's essay on the work of John Dehlin. But, since that matter had already been settled weeks before, I thought we were good to go. I proposed that as a summary of where things stood, he agreed to it, and we parted (I thought) amicably enough.

I'm not a devious person, and I would happily have participated in an open conversation on these matters. I'm not even remotely opposed to the kind of Mormon studies scholarship represented by Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, etc., and never saw this as an either/or. Quite the contrary. Moreover, I was personally involved in the hiring of Drs. Bradford, Davis, Heal, and Griffin and considered them friends, and I think that, at a minimum, I deserved basic candor and openness.

My view was, and continues to be, that both Mormon studies in that sense and what some are calling "classic FARMS" could easily have been accommodated within a capacious Maxwell Institute -- and that, under the old fundraising strategy that now seems to have been utterly abandoned, there would have been plenty of support for both. I do, however, object to the hijacking of the entire organization in order to implement an agenda approved by Trevor Luke. That is, in my view, a betrayal of the intentions of the founders and of the major donors who created and built up the organization, and of the promises that were made to us by a previous BYU administration when we agreed to join the University. (I know about these promises at first hand, as I was deeply involved in the negotiations that worked out that "merger" and, in fact, was the organization's representative to the First Presidency and the Board of Trustees when the first affiliation agreement was approved.)

Let me be clear: I love BYU, and I have loved the Maxwell Institute. I gave a great deal of my life to the latter over the past quarter of a century, in ways that do not appear on my CV and that have contributed nothing to my list of publications. I paid a high professional price for this. And now that service has been devalued and the fruits of it have been redirected to something rather different. I bear no ill will toward either the University or the Institute. But I'm deeply saddened and, yes, very troubled by recent events, which, again, I think were quite unnecessary. And Kristian's sneering dismissal of what we did as "commercial apologetics" -- which is historically untrue (the apologetics were being done on a shoestring long before any substantial donations arrived or were even imagined) and deeply unjust -- does nothing but exacerbate the personal pain that I, at least, have felt over the past eight months. My most fevered critics notwithstanding, I harbor no messianic delusions about myself. But, over and over since early June, I've found the phrase going through my mind "These are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

I hope to pull away from this exchange, because, for me, the consequences could be dire. I have reason to believe, though I hope it's not true, that Dr. Bradford wasn't content merely to purge me from the Institute but may even have sought to have me altogether fired from the University. (Kristian, to my horror and, yes, anger, even appeared willing to be supportive of a false accusation against me, back in September, that might have had precisely that effect. I hope and believe that he was unaware of the possible ramifications of that.) And, since Dr. Bradford appears to have the ear of certain prominent members of the administration, that could continue to be a risk for me.

I see myself as a loyal, even passionate, supporter of the mission of BYU as it has been outlined by the prophets and apostles who have spoken about that mission, and I hope that I've been a productive member of the faculty and a good teacher. I've never wanted to teach or work anywhere else, but I've found the past eight months painful and very difficult.

.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

To be precise, funds for the MI endowment were raised on the basis of all the work we do - CPART, METI, FARMS etc. Most of that went to support FARMS/LDS scholarship as that always has been the main thing we have done.

Until now.

Here's the problem. Over the course of several decades, millions of dollars were donated by thousands of donors to FARMS. The vast majority of these, well over 99% were from LDS. Now its possible that there is a vast underground interest in Syriac manuscripts and Maimonides' medical treatises among LDS, but I suspect that 99% of members have never heard of Syriac or Maimonides. They gave money for ancient scripture research, Book of Mormon studies, and apologetics. That money was placed into a general fund that funded all FARMS activities, including METI, CPART etc. I was opposed to this practice at the time, and felt these other projects were parasitic on FARMS, and needed to stand or fall on their own merits. But, be that as it may, the vast majority of the money went to classic FARMS projects.

This is entirely the opposite under the new regime. The Willes Center has its own separate endowment, and produced the only BOM related publication of the Institute. John Gee has his own endowed chair, that has nothing to do with the General funds. Those are the two main centers of classic-FARMS research. Neither draws on MI general funds. Thus, in reality, with the demise of the Review, MI under the new Junta funds no classic-FARMS research. And they don't want to. So yes, absolutely, donations originally given for FARMS projects no longer are used to fund FARMS-style projects.

At any rate, the donors will decide for themselves. Reports are that donations have tanked. The head of the development [fundraising] council for the Institute has resigned in protest, and refuses to try to raise any more money for MI.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Not in my experience. ;-) Academia is simply a corporate niche with an air of superiority.

-Allen

Well reflected in apologetics I would also add. Hence my turn off about apologetics after all. there is simply no point to it. If God wanted to convince the world, he would hardly need us ignorant people doing apologetics in such a fallible, incorrect way.

[Bill Hamblin]

You don't know what I know, Bill. And I suffer no delusions about my ability to impress you, I know you don't like me but I also know that you never knew me. Feel free to send me an email, pm, or if you'd like to talk by phone or skype. Like I said, we're getting very little done here. I'm not interested in advancing a contest between the Maxwell Institute and the Interpreter.

For whatever it's worth coming from me, I can tell you there wasn't any coordinated talking points, response effort, or anything else in regards to this message board discussion. I don't really follow this or any other message boards closely, and haven't for several years. I took notice of this discussion because a friend sent me a link, knowing I might have something to contribute. We've briefly talked about message board discussions here and there, but I was actually surprised to see Carl weigh in (he's wisely departed now, though he left his number for people interested in talking) and more surprised to see Kristian join. I don't view any of my comments here as official, just trying to lend my opinion for the benefit of people who know me and who might value my perspective here from when I participated several years ago. News, PR announcements, blog posts, etc. will be posted on our forthcoming website. Again, for whatever that's worth to you.

l strongly suspect that sometime this afternoon Jerry will tell Kristen and Carl and Blair to stop talking about MI.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[volgadon]

Well reflected in apologetics I would also add. Hence my turn off about apologetics after all. there is simply no point to it. If God wanted to convince the world, he would hardly need us ignorant people doing apologetics in such a fallible, incorrect way.

At least in my humble opinion, that isn't the point of apologetics. To borrow a phrase from Yehuda ha-Levi, apologetics are in defense of a despised faith.

[Bill Hamblin]

One thing may not be clear. The Maxwell Institute still does apologetics. We have three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research. They receive the full support of the executive director. The Journal is written for a general audience and is filled with apologetic research. We pour hundreds of thousands of dollars each year into supporting apologetic research. Sorry that is not enough for y'all.

You didn't answer my question about the "three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research."

Gee is 1, who is not funded by MI

Roper is 2, who is funded by MI, (I should add that Roper now works with the Willes center, not MI, so is technically not an MI employee any more)

who is number three? I hope you don't mean poor Dan McKinley who was fired a couple of days ago by Bradford. Whoops!

Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[rongo]

My view was, and continues to be, that both Mormon studies in that sense and what some are calling "classic FARMS" . . .

I think this "classic FARMS" / "new FARMS" comparison that has emerged has a lot in common with the "New Coke" / "Coke Classic" phenonemon. I think the ultimate outcome will be the same, too . . .

I hope to pull away from this exchange, because, for me, the consequences could be dire. I have reason to believe, though I hope it's not true, that Dr. Bradford wasn't content merely to purge me from the Institute but may even have sought to have me altogether fired from the University. (Kristian, to my horror and, yes, anger, even appeared willing to be supportive of a false accusation against me, back in September, that might have had precisely that effect. I hope and believe that he was unaware of the possible ramifications of that.) And, since Dr. Bradford appears to have the ear of certain prominent members of the administration, that could continue to be a risk for me.

For what it's worth (not a lot, in my case, I'm sure), my read on this is that there was absolutely no involvement from "the Brethren" in the origins of this mess, but they are fully aware of it now. However, they don't want to intervene in a way that will look like interference or intervening in University matters either way, and will let the "New Coke" take care of itself. A couple of years removed from the original mess, it won't look like an immediate reaction to the "Bradford initiative."

Again, Kevin Christiansen's quote of Bradford re: the vision and direction, is instructive:

I take a more traditional approach and view religious studies in terms of the following characteristics: (1) It necessarily requires the study of more than just one tradition; in other words, it is inherently a comparative, even cross-cultural, endeavor. (2) It advocates studying religious traditions in comparison with known ideological and philosophical challenges to religion that often function much the same way in society. (3) Because of the multidimensional makeup of systems of faith, it requires that such phenomena be studied from the perspective of several disciplines. (4) It proceeds on the basis of maintaining a distinction between descriptive and structural studies on the one hand and attempts at grappling with religious value judgments and truth claims on the other. (5) And, of particular importance, it requires that students learn how to approach their subjects from the vantage point of those they are studying.

If this kind of academic jargon and psychobabble, saying nothing at all but sounding sort-of smart, is an indication of what "New Mormon Studies!" will be, it will die on the vine sooner rather than later.

[mfbukowski]

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.

In fact, that has happened here. Some of us were discussing the Hymn on the Soul a week or two ago.

[rongo]

who is number three? I hope you don't mean poor Dan McKinley who was fired a couple of days ago by Bradford. Whoops!

Daniel McKinlay is gone now? Man! He wrote me a helpful letter about twelve years ago as I began my amateur apologetics activities (I had written David Paulen about something, and he was asked to respond).

No pressure on the "New Coke" guys, but . . . they have a tough row to hoe.

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth (not a lot, in my case, I'm sure), my read on this is that there was absolutely no involvement from "the Brethren" in the origins of this mess, but they are fully aware of it now. However, they don't want to intervene in a way that will look like interference or intervening in University matters either way, and will let the "New Coke" take care of itself. A couple of years removed from the original mess, it won't look like an immediate reaction to the "Bradford initiative."

That's pretty much how things are, I think.

Whether the Brethren will ever interfere or intervene or not, I don't know. They surely won't do it in a ham-fisted way, and they may not do it at all.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel McKinlay is gone now? Man! He wrote me a helpful letter about twelve years ago as I began my amateur apologetics activities (I had written David Paulen about something, and he was asked to respond).

No pressure on the "New Coke" guys, but . . . they have a tough row to hoe.

Yes. Dan was terminated, along with one of the editors, about three weeks ago.

[William Schryver]

I do, however, object to the hijacking of the entire organization in order to implement an agenda approved by Trevor Luke.

This is, to me, the central point of this entire controversy. Of course, you employ Luke's name above as a place-holder for the strange confederacy of alienated and/or apostate Mormons and a substantial group of seemingly faithful LDS academics who, notwithstanding their pretensions to faith in the restored gospel, share with the former a common ideological perspective.

This common ideological perspective (and its opposition) are perhaps best explained with a simple example related to the study of the Book of Mormon.

Traditional FARMS-style apologetics has, for example, published works that focus upon the witnesses of plates of Mormon, and how their testimony establishes the reality of those plates.

The "Mormon Studies" people are entirely disinterested in such questions, and consider them beneath the purview of "true scholarship." Instead, for example, they choose to examine the Book of Mormon from the perspectives of comparative literature; or how its publication is situated within the context of contemporary events, etc.

Both approaches, in my judgment, have their points of merit, and I am convinced that, by and large, Apologetics is willing to accommodate Mormon Studies. However, that tolerance is not reciprocated, for the simple reason that the Mormon Studies people believe their endeavors are demeaned, in the eyes of their Religious Studies peers, by any association with apologetics.

Therefore, in order to position themselves more favorably in the Religious Studies world, the Mormon Studies people have conspired to excise anything that talks of or would defend the claims of gold plates, angels, and the many other supernatural elements that form such a large part of the origins of the restored gospel.

In short, the Mormon Studies folks are ashamed of the things Mormon Apologetics is shamelessly willing to defend.

Edited February 12, 2013 by William Schryver

[mfbukowski]

This discussion is becoming too heated and it will be closed if that continues.

Better yet, sell popcorn. Or rent boxing gloves.

That could significantly help the fundraising issues I am sure.

[LifeOnaPlate]

l strongly suspect that sometime this afternoon Jerry will tell Kristen and Carl and Blair to stop talking about MI.

I don't know what "MI" stands for in this statement. Just to be clear, I already rhetorically backed out of the conversation prior to your prognostication, but not from any sort of instruction from the Institute. Carl posted once and declared his intention not to participate further from the get-go. All such guesses, insinuations, accusations, etc. are a good indicator of why I prefer not to engage with you on message boards. It's a lot of theater. Makes for good gossip, but not much else. Feel free to contact me personally if you have any other questions, if you're serious about talking, as I have said several times now.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't know what "MI" stands for in this statement. Just to be clear, I already rhetorically backed out of the conversation prior to your prognostication, but not from any sort of instruction from the Institute. Carl posted once and declared his intention not to participate further from the get-go. All such guesses, insinuations, accusations, etc. are a good indicator of why I prefer not to engage with you on message boards. It's a lot of theater. Makes for good gossip, but not much else. Feel free to contact me personally if you have any other questions, if you're serious about talking, as I have said several times now.

Jerry has, in fact, "silenced" employees at the MI (Maxwell Institute) before. (Except those who regularly leak to anti-Mormons, of course.) It is actually a standard tactic. The fact of the matter is, despite your offer to talk (which I'm sure you sincerely, but naively made) no one at the Maxwell Institute is providing answers to very basic and fundamental questions. Stonewall is the order of the day.