Farms/Maxwell Institute Origin And Change

[Bob Oliverio]

Admitting limited time here...:

Do I get this straight?

The organization called FARMS preceded the BYU/Church Institution called Maxwell Institute.  FARMS obviously had a mission statement that was adopted/cogent/accepted/supported by the Church/BYU.  The Church/BYU invited FARMS to become part of the Church supported Maxwell Institute at BYU for furthering the mission of FARMS and/or the Church/BYU.  The two became one with a common mission and goal supported and funded by the Church/BYU.  Sometime over the past year or so there was a change within the leaders, contributors, authors, editors or employees within the Maxwell Institute as directed by leaders within BYU/The Church.

So my questions are:

Has the mission, originally adopted/accepted by The Church/BYU in this merger of entities changed?

Did someone within The Church/BYU find the messaging becoming less effective for the benefit of members or the original mission statement?

Was the original mission statement of FARMS becoming, in the eyes of current Church/BYU leadership, in need of overhaul and a seasoned leadership staff not willing to change?

I suppose there are many reasons for, by evaluations of those here, for such an unexpected and significant change, but since becoming a member, that's just hasn't been a SOP for the Church on high profile ventures.  Seems like much thought is always given to change, especially on the impact to members, before change is affected.

Respectfully inquiring.

[Kenngo1969]

. . . [Crickets chirp] . . .

Gee, Bob, I wonder why your thread's not getting mobbed!!!

[blackstrap]

Yes and no. That could very well been the case. Then again ,you might be somewhat off the mark. I hope this clears everything up for you.

[ERayR]

Yes, no or maybe.

[William Schryver]

Perhaps I could offer the following parable in an attempt to explain the history of FARMS/NAMIRS:

John, Paul, and George wrote beautiful songs that people loved to hear. They originally published those songs on the FARMS label. As the fame and fortunes of FARMS steadily increased, a large multi-national company bought them out and renamed the label NAMIRS. John, Paul, and George were initially very happy about this, because the substantial increase in resources enabled them to spend more time writing songs that people loved to hear. In fact, after a very short period of time, their success was such that they decided to hire Ringo to "keep the books" of NAMIRS, thereby enabling John, Paul, and George to spend even more time writing songs that people loved to hear.

The years went by. And while John, Paul, and George preoccupied themselves with writing songs people loved to hear, Ringo "kept the books," attended meetings with the board of directors of the parent company of NAMIRS, and built himself a nice big office with the profits generated by the popular songs. Ringo didn't write songs, nor did he like the songs written by John, Paul, and George. He liked his big office. And John, Paul, and George were so content to let him "keep the books" and attend meetings that they didn't even object when Ringo put a name plate on his desk that said "Executive Director – NAMIRS." They just wanted to keep on writing songs that people loved to hear.

Then one day Ringo fired John, Paul, and George.

Now NAMIRS no longer produces songs that people love to hear.

Edited February 8, 2013 by William Schryver

[cdowis]

Yes, no or maybe.

Is that your final answer?

[cdowis]

Will,

Fortunately that is only a parable.

[phaedrus ut]

Then one day Ringo fired John, Paul, and George.

Now NAMIRS no longer produces songs that people love to hear.

Someone has to be Yoko in this story!

[Daniel Peterson]

The organization called FARMS preceded the BYU/Church Institution called Maxwell Institute.

The organization called FARMS became the Maxwell Institute. So, yes, in that sense, FARMS preceded the Maxwell Institute.

FARMS obviously had a mission statement that was adopted/cogent/accepted/supported by the Church/BYU. The Church/BYU invited FARMS to become part of the Church supported Maxwell Institute at BYU for furthering the mission of FARMS and/or the Church/BYU. The two became one with a common mission and goal supported and funded by the Church/BYU.

Not quite. FARMS, which had already been doing non-Mormon things (such as digitizing the Dead Sea Scrolls and publishing Islamic texts) was invited to become part of BYU. It soon changed its name to the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, with the designation FARMS being reserved for the Mormon-focused component of the overall Institute. Many of us disliked that unwieldy and unmemorable name, so, when the opportunity arose and permission was given, we changed our name to the Neal A. Maxwell institute for Religious Scholarship.

Sometime over the past year or so there was a change within the leaders, contributors, authors, editors or employees within the Maxwell Institute as directed by leaders within BYU/The Church.

There was such a change. It was initiated by the current director of the Institute, a relatively recent appointment, with the approval of certain University leaders. The presiding quorums of the Church had nothing to do with it, and were not informed of the change in advance (and perhaps not ever, officially speaking).

Has the mission, originally adopted/accepted by The Church/BYU in this merger of entities changed?

There was no "merger of entities" and the leadership of the Church wasn't involved. But, yes, the mission of the organization appears to have fundamentally changed.

Did someone within The Church/BYU find the messaging becoming less effective for the benefit of members or the original mission statement?

There was no Church involvement. And it's not clear that any question of "effectiveness" entered into this. The current director of the Maxwell Institute and a small handful of other employees of the Institute evidently never particularly approved of the mission for which FARMS (which later became the Institute) was founded. They carefully planned a change, gradually eliminating all those who had founded and led the organization, and, when the opportunity presented itself, eliminated the last vestiges of the Institute's original leadership.

Was the original mission statement of FARMS becoming, in the eyes of current Church/BYU leadership, in need of overhaul and a seasoned leadership staff not willing to change?

There was no involvement on the part of "the Church."

It is quite true, though, that the ousted leadership and staff of the Institute regard the "new direction" of the Institute as a betrayal of its founding purposes, of the intentions of those who established the organization and led it for a quarter of a century, of the promises of the University president and Church leaders who brought it into the University (but who are now either dead or retired), and of the desires of the donors who have long supported it.

I suppose there are many reasons for, by evaluations of those here, for such an unexpected and significant change, but since becoming a member, that's just hasn't been a SOP for the Church on high profile ventures. Seems like much thought is always given to change, especially on the impact to members, before change is affected.

Much thought was very definitely given to this change. The coup was deftly executed. But it was tactical thought, not philosophical. And it wasn't done by the presiding quorums of the Church.

.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps I could offer the following parable in an attempt to explain the history of FARMS/NAMIRS:

John, Paul, and George wrote beautiful songs that people loved to hear. They originally published those songs on the FARMS label. As the fame and fortunes of FARMS steadily increased, a large multi-national company bought them out and renamed the label NAMIRS. John, Paul, and George were initially very happy about this, because the substantial increase in resources enabled them to spend more time writing songs that people loved to hear. In fact, after a very short period of time, their success was such that they decided to hire Ringo to "keep the books" of NAMIRS, thereby enabling John, Paul, and George to spend even more time writing songs that people loved to hear.

The years went by. And while John, Paul, and George preoccupied themselves with writing songs people loved to hear, Ringo "kept the books," attended meetings with the board of directors of the parent company of NAMIRS, and built himself a nice big office with the profits generated by the popular songs. Ringo didn't write songs, nor did he like the songs written by John, Paul, and George. He liked his big office. And John, Paul, and George were so content to let him "keep the books" and attend meetings that they didn't even object when Ringo put a name plate on his desk that said "Executive Director – NAMIRS." They just wanted to keep on writing songs that people loved to hear.

Then one day Ringo fired John, Paul, and George.

Now NAMIRS no longer produces songs that people love to hear.

An excellent analogy.

.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps I could offer the following parable in an attempt to explain the history of FARMS/NAMIRS:

John, Paul, and George wrote beautiful songs that people loved to hear. They originally published those songs on the FARMS label. As the fame and fortunes of FARMS steadily increased, a large multi-national company bought them out and renamed the label NAMIRS. John, Paul, and George were initially very happy about this, because the substantial increase in resources enabled them to spend more time writing songs that people loved to hear. In fact, after a very short period of time, their success was such that they decided to hire Ringo to "keep the books" of NAMIRS, thereby enabling John, Paul, and George to spend even more time writing songs that people loved to hear.

The years went by. And while John, Paul, and George preoccupied themselves with writing songs people loved to hear, Ringo "kept the books," attended meetings with the board of directors of the parent company of NAMIRS, and built himself a nice big office with the profits generated by the popular songs. Ringo didn't write songs, nor did he like the songs written by John, Paul, and George. He liked his big office. And John, Paul, and George were so content to let him "keep the books" and attend meetings that they didn't even object when Ringo put a name plate on his desk that said "Executive Director – NAMIRS." They just wanted to keep on writing songs that people loved to hear.

Then one day Ringo fired John, Paul, and George.

Now NAMIRS no longer produces songs that people love to hear.

Brilliant, Will. Bravo!

[robuchan]

Admitting limited time here...:

Do I get this straight?

The organization called FARMS preceded the BYU/Church Institution called Maxwell Institute. FARMS obviously had a mission statement that was adopted/cogent/accepted/supported by the Church/BYU. The Church/BYU invited FARMS to become part of the Church supported Maxwell Institute at BYU for furthering the mission of FARMS and/or the Church/BYU. The two became one with a common mission and goal supported and funded by the Church/BYU. Sometime over the past year or so there was a change within the leaders, contributors, authors, editors or employees within the Maxwell Institute as directed by leaders within BYU/The Church.

So my questions are:

Has the mission, originally adopted/accepted by The Church/BYU in this merger of entities changed?

Did someone within The Church/BYU find the messaging becoming less effective for the benefit of members or the original mission statement?

Was the original mission statement of FARMS becoming, in the eyes of current Church/BYU leadership, in need of overhaul and a seasoned leadership staff not willing to change?

I suppose there are many reasons for, by evaluations of those here, for such an unexpected and significant change, but since becoming a member, that's just hasn't been a SOP for the Church on high profile ventures. Seems like much thought is always given to change, especially on the impact to members, before change is affected.

Respectfully inquiring.

From what I understand, and what I have heard from some BYU insiders...

The church is very PR conscious right now. Apologetics, especially the way it was being done by the MI and many of the personalities we know and love here, was increasingly becoming an area that shed the church in a negative light in the public eye. The church tried to reign these people in, but they refused on the basis of professional integrity and commitment to a higher spiritual mission than the brethren. So the church had to make a change. The problem is not necessarily apologetics but in the tone of the apologetics.

[Bob Crockett]

I know that MI is still active because I have been solicited for funds in MI's new iteration. By Ed Snow, who solicited me for funds for MI during the Peterson era.

I had the privilege of being "on the ground" when FARMS arrived at BYU when Jack Welch started teaching circa 1978. I was Jack Welch's first graduate research assistant. "Arrived" meaning it was physically on the premises but not a part of the BYU's structure. This was before silly mission statements became all the rage. FARMS then was dedicated to Book of Mormon scholarship, but that entailed a lot of Old World and Old Testament scholarship to sort of extend what Hugh Nibley had been doing. Between my departure in 1982 and when FARMS merged with BYU, its work shifted towards apologetics.

I also had the privilege of sitting in a small meeting of lawyers with Elder Holland a month after he had been ordained as an apostle, or in 1994. He came to speak to the Los Angeles chapter of LDS lawyers, where I was a member of the board at the time. Elder Holland spent about five minutes holding forth about how wonderful FARMS was and the apologetics work it was doing. He remarked about how an important role FARMS played in the LDS community. I was attuned to such comments and remembered them because of my prior affiliation with Prof. Welch. (As well, I had published a graduate student paper through FARMS.) It is likely that few of the attendees had really ever heard of FARMS at that time.

You can say today what you will about "apologetics" in the Church and how despicable it is, but at least at one time in my presence I could tell that it had the Church's endorsement.

[Calm]

The church tried to reign these people in, but they refused.....

Knowing the men involved, I find this story to be ludicrous.

he church tried to reign these people in, but they refused on the basis of professional integrity and commitment to a higher spiritual mission than the brethren.

And rather slanderous now that I think about it more both to them (for what it implies about their arrogance) and the brethren (for what it implies about their spirituality and integrity).

And I've got to wonder if anyone has noticed that Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin are still publishing articles in the Deseret News. Strange that the Brethren would can them for the lesser read NAMI material, but continue to allow them to publish in what is probably read by many more LDS and nonLDS in the DN.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

Knowing the men involved, I find this story to be ludicrous.

And rather slanderous now that I think about it more both to them (for what it implies about their arrogance) and the brethren (for what it implies about their spirituality and integrity).

Look at the I'm a Mormon ads. You see Rock Stars and Harley Davidson drivers. That's what the church is trying to promote. It doesn't want cranky, aggressive apologists making a bad name for the church.

[Calm]

Look at the I'm a Mormon ads. You see Rock Stars and Harley Davidson drivers. That's what the church is trying to promote. It doesn't want cranky, aggressive apologists making a bad name for the church.

Look at Mormon Times. The Deseret News is reaching a lot more people than the FARMS material ever did. Strange if the Church doesn't want those cranky, aggressive apologists drawing any attention.

[Calm]

Oh, look what I found on the Mormon Newsroom site where the Church puts info they want reporters to use for their questions....one of those nasty, aggressive apologists:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/assets/pdf/Jeff_Lindsay_DNA.pdf

And another don't they know when they are no longer wanted apologist:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-getting-it-right

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[robuchan]

Oh, look what I found on the Mormon Newsroom site where the Church puts info they want reporters to use for their questions....one of those nasty, aggressive apologists:

http://www.mormonnew...Lindsay_DNA.pdf

I think this is ample proof that apologetics is not the issue. It was the people involved and the tone set forth by those people.

[Calm]

I think this is ample proof that apologetics is not the issue. It was the people involved and the tone set forth by those people.

So the fact that Dan himself is listed on MormonNewsroom site and writes constantly for the Mormon Times demonstrates that if there are "those people" out there, Dan is not one of them, right? Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah, Professor Peterson, quit bein' so cranky and aggressive! (Or something ...)

[Wiki Wonka]

The church tried to reign these people in, but they refused on the basis of professional integrity and commitment to a higher spiritual mission than the brethren.

This statement is absurd.

If the Church wants to "reign people in," they don't try and fail. They have very effective ways to try and "reign people in." Ask the first two editors of MormonThink.

When, for example, Scratch makes repeated statements about the Church telling FAIR to "tone it down," you really ought to pay attention to his "usual disclaimer" to take his info with a big grain of salt. Much of what he comes up with (and this particular item is one of them) is absolute fantasy.

So, apologists think that they are on a "higher spiritual mission than the brethren?" Ludicrous. Do you really think that anyone in the Church who is publicly visible as an apologist would defy the Church or the Brethren and get away with it?

WW

[Calm]

Do you really think that anyone in the Church who is publicly visible as an apologist would defy the Church or the Brethren and get away with it?

And keep their job at BYU, then get published weekly in the Deseret News or referred as a source for reporters at the Mormon Newsroom which just might encourage those reporters to call up and talk to them....

This whole scenario is so unconnected to what is going on in reality.

[robuchan]

So, apologists think that they are on a "higher spiritual mission than the brethren?" Ludicrous. Do you really think that anyone in the Church who is publicly visible as an apologist would defy the Church or the Brethren and get away with it?

It appears they didn't get away with it.

[Scott Lloyd]

From what I understand, and what I have heard from some BYU insiders...

The church is very PR conscious right now. Apologetics, especially the way it was being done by the MI and many of the personalities we know and love here, was increasingly becoming an area that shed the church in a negative light in the public eye. The church tried to reign these people in, but they refused on the basis of professional integrity and commitment to a higher spiritual mission than the brethren. So the church had to make a change. The problem is not necessarily apologetics but in the tone of the apologetics.

I think you're blowing smoke. Why don't you identify these "insiders" and explain to us why we should take their word as credible?

Meanwhile, Professors Peterson, Hamblin and Midgley are present on this board. Why don't we ask them straight out: Gentlemen, did you resist being "reined in" by the Brethren on the grounds that you have a higher spiritual mission than they do?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It appears they didn't get away with it.

You keep saying that and yet where is the proof? Dan has a bigger audience now probably then he did a year ago and all through the good graces of the Church owned DN. Bill too.

Talk about being in denial.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah