What Has The New Farms Produced?

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

There is no reason you need to be an apologist. The problem is that your junta systematically set out to dismantle an institute that was founded to do apologetics, and make it into something entirely different and more congenial to your personal interests.

[Bill Hamblin]

Don't want to make promises for the new editor, but I'd be very surprised if you don't see it launched before the end of the year. Blair will be doing the drum roll, so watch his posts for actual news.

More vaporware.

[Bill Hamblin]

Holy cow you really do live in a bubble.

In the real world, Bill, employment is generally "at will." This means that a person can be hired or fired at the pleasure of either themselves or their employer. Ethics have nothing to do with it. If the leader of an org wants the org to move a certain direction but top management isn't on board ... you replace top management. Happens every single day in corporate America. I've been laid off several times due to the economy, shifting strategy, etc...

In any case, I find it highly amusing that you label Dan's firing/resignation as immoral. Immorality is not defined by what we do or do not like.

In regards to the enthusiasm ..... again, you are in a bubble. The Mormon Studies world -- a world much larger than you may imagine -- is thrilled with the new direction of the MI. They like the new MI but either don't know or don't care about leadership changes.

Let's work on our English comprehension and logic skills, shall we?

I said the way Dan was fired was a disastrous blunder. Kristin agrees with me.

No one disagrees that Jerry had the power to fire Dan or anyone else he wants. But power can be used immorally.

[William Schryver]

And, is it possible to do "non-commercial apologetics?" (Or, perhaps "non-profit apologetics." Wait; wouldn't that be what FAIR does since they are a 501c-3?) Or, perhaps the antithesis of "commercial apologetics" is "academic apologetics," which would betray a latent disdain for those things widely accepted by the public?

It is curious.

-Allen

You've hit the nail on the head, Allen. "Commercial apologetics" is the term for "the kind of scholarship a high priests group leader from Parowan likes." It should be differentiated from "religious studies," which is the term for "the kind of scholarship my academic friends and I prefer."

[Bill Hamblin]

A refresher course on reading comprehension skills may be in order, Bill. Clearly Kristain was indicating that there isn't an interest in writing old FARMS like material in order to point out changing attitudes in academia and maybe even within the broader Church. People don't want to write it because it doesn't interest them. Sounds like Kristain is actually celebrating that fact.

Well, clearly Kristian is wrong In seven months we've produced three volumes of Interpreter, and are working on a book. In that same time, the new and improved review has produced nothing.

Yes, I get the fact that he was celebrating the fact that [he thinks] no one wants to write classic FARMS materials, when the truth is that no one wants to submit classic FARMS materials to MI.

[Chaos]

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

[Bill Hamblin]

What a shocker!

Bradford has been publicly attacked due the MI changes for months now. Dan has played a part in drumming up the criticism.

Why on earth would Bradford want to invite someone to his table who constantly and persistently attacks him online?

(Note to Dan: Again, I don't have an opinion on how your firing happened etc... or whether you are justified in criticizing Bradford. Maybe you are .... I'm just pointing out that after you began the public criticism I would have been surprised had he greeted you with open arms at MI meetings)

Reading comprehension alert.

Kristian was bemoaning the fact that Dan isn't helping with fund raising.

I simply noted the fact that, given Jerry's treatment of Dan, there is no reason to expect him to raise funds for the Institute.

[William Schryver]

Well, clearly Kristian is wrong In seven months we've produced three volumes of Interpreter, and are working on a book. In that same time, the new and improved review has produced nothing.

Yes, I get the fact that he was celebrating the fact that [he thinks] no one wants to write classic FARMS materials, when the truth is that no one wants to submit classic FARMS materials to MI.

The irony is that the supply was deliberately reduced in order to artificially suppress the demand, all with the ultimate intention of replacing the product with something for which there is no demand whatsoever.

[Bill Hamblin]

A refresher course on reading comprehension skills may be in order, Bill. Clearly Kristain was indicating that there isn't an interest in writing old FARMS like material in order to point out changing attitudes in academia and maybe even within the broader Church. People don't want to write it because it doesn't interest them. Sounds like Kristain is actually celebrating that fact.

Um..... what is the full name of the MI? And now you are complaining that the book isn't about the BoM ... but Church history.

You have become a professional anti-MI crusader in the vein of the best anti-Mormons. You are actively seeking out things to complain about, purposefully twisting Kirstain and Carl's words, and trying to win rhetorical, rather than substantive points.

Please, someone save this thread for posterity. Or, at least save it for a course on irony.

You, once again, miss the point. You actually seem incapable of getting the point.

The point is that classic FARMS studied the Book of Mormon and other ancient scripture. That was the focus.

Bradford wanted to move classic FARMS towards a Mormon Studies model, and away from ancient scripture studies. He systematically laid the ground work for this by changing the name of everything to better match his model. (The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies becomes the NAM Institute for Religious Studies. The FARMS Review becomes the Mormon Studies Review. He wanted to change the name of the Willes Center for BOM Studies to the Willes Center for Religious Studies. Compare the new mission statement with the old. Here's the new:

To deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints

and promote mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths

through the scholarly study of religious texts and traditions.

Nothing about the BOM, nothing about defending the faith.

So may point is simple. Bradford doesn't want the institute to study the BOM as an ancient text. He wants to do Mormon Studies. A book on the "coming forth" of the BOM or on the text of the BOM is consistent with that goal. A book on the BOM as ancient scripture is not. That's the point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Like pointing out the book was "self published" and has a large number of typographical errors (neither of which has anything to do with arguments made in the book)?

All readers should know what to expect going in to any book. The typographical errors, if I recall correctly, averaged about 6 per page. Such problems are accounted for by the fact that the book was self-published. All book reviews mention the publisher in some capacity. It's a standard inclusion.

Like making sure that the LDS audience knew the author had been addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs and was excommunicated?

These points weren't raised to smear the author, as it seems you're implying. I made sure these things were known precisely because they were emphasized by Shawn McCraney himself, of course. I accounted for such things in terms of evangelical rhetorical strategies---emphasizing one's fallen nature, depravity before God, etc. I proceeded to engage Shawn's claim that many Mormons believe apostasy is due to sinning (like drugs and alcohol). I supported Shawn's assertion that such claims are largely unhelpful and often untrue. I treated Shawn's experience as an opportunity for Mormons not simply to dismiss him, but to engage in some critical self-reflection. (My original un-edited version of the review made that even more obvious.)

Like pointing out that McCraney's recounted experiences are "largely unverifiable?"

As are many aspects of personal memoir-style books. I pointed it out only to observe that I would take him at his word. In other words, engage him in good faith and work with what he provided rather than playing guessing games at what was "really" going on. I did the same in my review of the recent memoir by Joanna Brooks, which originally was also self-published. It isn't clear to me why this is a point of criticism for you.

Like quoting online sources and websites, which several left at MI believe is not evidence of academic rigor?

If online sources and websites pertain to the topic I don't have a problem with quoting them. (Neither, apparently, does my current thesis mentor, or the committee reviewing the thesis.)

I think you did a good job in the review, but others might find problems with your approach in several areas, just as you find problems with the approaches that some others have taken.

I appreciate that and I recognize that there are differing perspectives on such things. Someone in the discussion suggested that MIRS was somehow opposed to apologetics full-stop, and that no one had published apologetics. I provided a counter-example and suggested that there are multiple perspectives on what constitutes appropriate and effective apologetics.

And, yet, the title came directly from wording you used in the review: "Because Latter-day Saints believe that the motivation behind behavior matters (see Moroni 7:6–10; Matthew 6:1–6), this flawed understanding can result in stress, depression, and resignation for some or pride and hypocrisy for others. For McCraney, such an approach resulted in all of the above, ultimately leaving him spiritually stillborn."

McCraney himself depicted matters that way, and "spiritually still-born" wasn't in the title, just the word "stillborn." My objection was also against the silly subtitle.

And one that would never have been published under the new direction at MI. Only time will tell if any similar apologetic pieces ever get published again at MI.

Hard to say, really. I'm not the new Review's editor, though I may be involved with it in some capacity soon. More great announcements on that front to come shortly... (Keeping up the teasers is good PR!)

[Bill Hamblin]

What a shocker!

Bradford has been publicly attacked due the MI changes for months now. Dan has played a part in drumming up the criticism.

Why on earth would Bradford want to invite someone to his table who constantly and persistently attacks him online?

(Note to Dan: Again, I don't have an opinion on how your firing happened etc... or whether you are justified in criticizing Bradford. Maybe you are .... I'm just pointing out that after you began the public criticism I would have been surprised had he greeted you with open arms at MI meetings)

He wouldn't. He's made it perfectly clear he wants Dan and all the old guard completely ostracized. This is why it is so ironic that Kristian is saying, "gee Dan, we sure wish you'd come back and raise money for us!" Really?

[Nevo]

I don't know what counts as "classic FARMS" material, but Andrew Smith's article in the latest in the latest issue of JBMORS, "Deflected Agreement in the Book of Mormon," is explicitly apologetic:

"Deflected agreement within the text of the Book of Mormon refutes views of the record either as a strictly nineteenth-century production or as some sort of 'inspired fiction.' The distribution, frequency, and variation of DA across grammatical categories within the text of the Book of Mormon support Joseph’s claims of the record’s historicity, authorship, and ancient Semitic origin."

I'm glad the Maxwell Institute is still publishing pieces like this one.

[Bill Hamblin]

Folks, maybe we could get Kristian's take on "commercial apologetics," as he was the one who used the term.

As the new regime is completely parasitic on classic FARMS endowments and fund-raising, and Kristian's job is paid for you endowments raised to do "commercial apologetics," and fund-raising has apparently collapsed in the wake of the debacle, it is rather ironic that Kristian denigrates the "commercial apologetics" that pays for his supper.

[Kristian]

OK, I'll be the one to ask the question, Kristian. This is the first time I've encountered the phrase "commercial apologetics." What do you mean to imply by it?

What I mean by commercial apologetics is doing apologetics for hire. In other words, any organization that raises funds on the basis that its primary deliverables are apologetic publications and other apologetic activity is a commercial apologetic organization. It's like any other commercial enterprise, by which I mean an organization that receives income and has expenses. I'm not really using the word as a slur. I use it to identify a certain funding model. I would say, for example that Ravi Zacharias International Ministry is a commercial apologetic and evangelizing organization. Just as I would say that all private educational institutions are commercial educational organizations.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Kristian

[volgadon]

I don't know what counts as "classic FARMS" material, but Andrew Smith's article in the latest in the latest issue of JBMORS, "Deflected Agreement in the Book of Mormon," is explicitly apologetic:

"Deflected agreement within the text of the Book of Mormon refutes views of the record either as a strictly nineteenth-century production or as some sort of 'inspired fiction.' The distribution, frequency, and variation of DA across grammatical categories within the text of the Book of Mormon support Joseph’s claims of the record’s historicity, authorship, and ancient Semitic origin."

I'm glad the Maxwell Institute is still publishing pieces like this one.

I wonder if it is the same Andrew Smith I know.

[Bill Hamblin]

What I mean by commercial apologetics is doing apologetics for hire. In order words, any organization that raises funds on the basis that its primary deliverables are apologetic publications and other apologetic activity is a commercial apologetic organization. It's like any other commercial enterprise, by which I mean an organization that receives income and has expenses. I'm not really using the word as a slur. I use it to identify a certain funding model. I would say, for example that Ravi Zacharias International Ministry is a commercial apologetic and evangelizing organization. Just as I would say that all private institutions are commercial educational organizations.

Kristian, your job is just as dependent on fundraising as classic FARMS, and was parasitic on classic FARMS. Does that mean you do "commercial scholarship"? Don't you see the hypocrisy of parasitically taking a salary raised for "commercial apologetics" while belittling the very fundraising you live off of?

[volgadon]

If online sources and websites pertain to the topic I don't have a problem with quoting them. (Neither, apparently, does my current thesis mentor, or the committee reviewing the thesis.)

I'm reading Eliot Wolfson's "Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson," he references online sources a number of times in the notes and bibliography. He, incidentally, will be speaking in Provo this March.

Edited February 12, 2013 by volgadon

[ERayR]

Let me add one more points:

I'm sure I sound flippant and dismissive in my posts (part of the game it seems to me), .

I am nothing more than an interested bystander who has had some years of experience in the business world, including human resources. The flippant and dismissive tone of your posts make it difficult for me to take them seriously.

From an HR standpoint the shakeup at MI was handled very poorly. That said it takes some degree of arrogance to now assure the recipients of such treatment to support fund raising activities for the program on behalf of present management who won't even communicate except through messengers.

Just an observation.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Well, we'll see. The fact that there is no new Review, (and won't be for at least half a year, if ever) means that it is a Rorschach test. Everyone can see in it whatever they want.

What is crystal clear, however, is that the new direction is strongly supported by all the anti-Mormons and apostates. That should give a reflective man pause.

[William Schryver]

What I mean by commercial apologetics is doing apologetics for hire. In order words, any organization that raises funds on the basis that its primary deliverables are apologetic publications and other apologetic activity is a commercial apologetic organization. It's like any other commercial enterprise, by which I mean an organization that receives income and has expenses. I'm not really using the word as a slur. I use it to identify a certain funding model. I would say, for example that Ravi Zacharias International Ministry is a commercial apologetic and evangelizing organization. Just as I would say that all private institutions are commercial educational organizations.

Come now, Kristian ... duplicity does not become you. You've provided a definition of "commercial apologetics" as viewed from the production side of the equation, while carefully avoiding the consumer thereof. It is the consumer of "commercial apologetics" that is really at issue here. You've considered it demeaning that the consumers of the primary product of your academic "factory" were largely non-academics. By converting the factory to a "religious studies" model you are able to transform your consumer base away from the proletariat and into the halls of academia, where you are convinced it belongs.

Edited February 12, 2013 by William Schryver

[Bill Hamblin]

I am nothing more than an interested bystander who has had some years of experience in the business world, including human resources. The flippant and dismissive tone of your posts make it difficult for me to take them seriously.

From an HR standpoint the shakeup at MI was handled very poorly. That said it takes some degree of arrogance to now assure the recipients of such treatment to support fund raising activities for the program on behalf of present management who won't even communicate except through messengers.

Just an observation.

Indeed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, clearly Kristian is wrong In seven months we've produced three volumes of Interpreter, and are working on a book. In that same time, the new and improved review has produced nothing.

We're getting there, Bill. In the meantime, I hope things don't devolve into a petty contest. I recognize that feelings are raw. If you and others sincerely wish the Institute well then sit tight and see what develops. I don't have any desire to engage in competition with you, the Interpreter, or any other group or organization. If it's true that "classic FARMS" stuff will no longer be published at the Institute (which I believe isn't true depending on how one defines that term, see Nevo's post above, but grant it for the sake of argument) then such works still have a place at the Interpreter, right? Let's let a thousand flowers bloom, brother, the future looks bright. No one is standing in your way. We all have some exciting opportunities available to us, let's make the most of them and move forward. In the meantime, let's quit showboating on message boards and start putting shoulders to the wheel and whathaveyou.

[awyatt]

These points weren't raised to smear the author, as it seems you're implying.

...

It isn't clear to me why this is a point of criticism for you.

They aren't points of criticism about your review; I'm glad you have them in there and think they add to the review. The problem is that I don't find your inclusion of such points to be any more problematic than many of the apologetic approaches you apparently eschew. I also believe that for some (not all, but some) your approach could be seen as of the same type as those you reject.

In other words, your approach wouldn't "fix" apologetics, as MI seems now wont to do.

If online sources and websites pertain to the topic I don't have a problem with quoting them. (Neither, apparently, does my current thesis mentor, or the committee reviewing the thesis.)

Neither do I. But there are some of the current directors at MI who do. And they won't care what I think or what your thesis mentor thinks. I hope they care what you think.

I appreciate that and I recognize that there are differing perspectives on such things. Someone in the discussion suggested that MIRS was somehow opposed to apologetics full-stop, and that no one had published apologetics. I provided a counter-example and suggested that there are multiple perspectives on what constitutes appropriate and effective apologetics.

Actually, that someone mentioned that some of the current director-level personnel at MI were opposed to apologetics and hadn't published any. That person didn't mention you or others remaining at MI who have published apologetics.

You have, whether you like it or not, accepted a position with an organization whose leadership has at least given the impression that it is opposed to apologetics, full stop.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

What is crystal clear, however, is that the new direction is strongly supported by all the anti-Mormons and apostates. That should give a reflective man pause.

I have to say that is one of the things I find most disturbing about the whole scenario. If I found myself receiving their approbation, I would see a need for some introspection.

[The Nehor]

We're getting there, Bill. In the meantime, I hope things don't devolve into a petty contest. I recognize that feelings are raw. If you and others sincerely wish the Institute well then sit tight and see what develops. I don't have any desire to engage in competition with you, the Interpreter, or any other group or organization. If it's true that "classic FARMS" stuff will no longer be published at the Institute (which I believe isn't true depending on how one defines that term, see Nevo's post above, but grant it for the sake of argument) then such works still have a place at the Interpreter, right? Let's let a thousand flowers bloom, brother, the future looks bright. No one is standing in your way. We all have some exciting opportunities available to us, let's make the most of them and move forward. In the meantime, let's quit showboating on message boards and start putting shoulders to the wheel and whathaveyou.

Translation: We took all the infrastructure and the money you helped raise and are using it for something else. We kicked you out in a slimy way. You had to start from scratch and rebuild from the ground up. Now can't we all be friends?

I wonder if the "New Guard" would have succeeded if their Mormon Studies approach started with a more grassroots approach rather then with seizing an already existing organization?

This whole thing has at least validated for me personally my amguished decision years ago to not pursue a career in academia when I saw silliness and pettiness like this. The corporate world is more civil and honest.