Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[David T]

New form the Blog: Seven Questions for Spencer Fluhman

Click above for the whole deal, and it addresses many questions presented here and otherwise, but here's an excerpt:

4. What will set the MSR apart from other Mormon-themed publications?

Well, we’re modeling the Review in part on Reviews in American History. We’re going to chronicle and assess the field, in other words, not contribute to it in terms of original scholarship. It will be a place where scholars and other interested readers can quickly, conveniently find great minds engaging one another about the current and future state of several fields. The Maxwell Institute has other publications focused on ancient studies, so the Review will seek to complement those by leaning towards modern Mormon studies. We won’t leave the ancient world behind, but we are broadening the Review so as to work in tandem with the Institute’s other offerings.

And

5. The MSR’s predecessor had an energetic tradition of apologetics. Do you plan to incorporate apologetic scholarship in any form in the journal?

We’re broadening the Review’s scope, yes, but, no, we don’t intend to leave apologetics entirely behind. As one of a diverse set of academic conversations about Mormonism, apologetics will always have a place in the Review. I see us as expanding on the Review’s past in an effort to serve a broader academic readership. Doing this helps us keep pace with where Mormon studies is headed. I suppose we’re simultaneously looking back and forward.

Edited March 27, 2013 by David T

[MormonMason]

No original scholarship? What???

[David T]

No original scholarship? What???

For the Review. The Review. A Review and assessment of the scholastic field and other related publications by individuals participating in those fields.

Note he says the review will be working 'in tandem' with the other offerings. Other offerings.

The Review is not the Studies in the Bible and Antiquity. This is not the Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture. This is not the Middle East Text Initiative. This is not other books to be published. These are not occasional papers. This is the Mormon Studies Review. The Mormon Studies Review is one publication for the NAMI. It is not in and of itself the NAMI.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Edited March 27, 2013 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

For the Review. The Review. A Review and assessment of the scholastic field and other related publications by individuals participating in those fields.

Note he says the review will be working 'in tandem' with the other offerings. Other offerings.

The Review is not the Studies in the Bible and Antiquity. This is not the Journal of Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture. This is not the Middle East Text Initiative. This is not other books to be published. These are not occasional papers. This is the Mormon Studies Review. The Mormon Studies Review is one publication for the NAMI. It is not in and of itself the NAMI.

What is so hard to understand about this?

So what I'm getting from this is that pretty much everything that made the old FARMS Review engaging, stimulating and provocative will be absent from this new publication. And it will only appear one time a year at that.

Ah, well. We now have Interpreter, with one new article appearing each week. I can be content.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

Well, then I guess they'll be losing you as a subscriber, and adding me. I guess we cancel each other out. Unless you didn't subscribe previously. In which case it'll just be a +1 for them between us.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, then I guess they'll be losing you as a subscriber, and adding me. I guess we cancel each other out. Unless you didn't subscribe previously. In which case it'll just be a +1 for them between us.

It wasn't necessary to subscribe to the FARMS Review to read it online. Will the policy be different with the annual Mormon Studies Review? Worse, will MI cut off free on-line access to archived FARMS material?

Incidentally, any excess funds that I might have had to donate to BYU or the Maxwell Institute (and I have subscribed to FARMS/MI publications in times past) will now go to support the mission of the Interpreter Foundation.

I love BYU; it's my alma mater. But for my part, I'm afraid they'll now have to make due with the portion of my tithing that is allocated to it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I do, however, see good reason why parts of the classic FARMS approach should not be pursued by the MI. FARMS was never monolithic; and much of what they did may well still be pursued. But I do think the wheat and tares approach to apologetics is not fit for MI.

I appreciate you responding to one of my questions. Would you also be so kind as to explain what, exactly, is your "tares" metaphor in reference to in relation to "classic FARMS?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 27, 2013 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

This forum is a wonderful venue to discuss issues related to Mormonism. I would hope it doesn't become a Wailing Wall for some people who just can't seem to get over the fact that some changes took place at a particular Mormon Institution in a way that they didn't like. It is really disappointing to see so-called academics acting like spoiled children, intent on being a thorn in the side of people who are trying to effect changes.

Perhaps if folks could simply sit back and give it a year, perhaps they will see that the Maxwell Institute can remain a force for good, scholarly inquiry without the sniping apologetics of some past participants.

For those clamoring for some statement of contrition, recognition, or clarification from the MI, grow up and move on. Like I said, the Church does not comment on Disciplinary Council proceedings. I hope the MI continues to follow that model.

Until I came upon your post, I had the impression that the discourse here from both sides had been about as restrained and civil as could be expected under the circumstances.

[wenglund]

It does help in that you have put to words something that as an outsider I have "intuited" but could not quite bring to full expression.

That is good to know and kind of you to say.

Your last statement is curious. Do you think that it will actually become part of that "the onslaught of anti-Mormonism and the counter-cult industry" that FARMS was started to confront?

From my limited perspective and experience in religious studies, it seems that secularizing such studies and giving deference to secular views, may have an inadvertent negative impact on religious faith. The "Jesus Seminar" comes to mind. And, if I have understood Bill correctly, he has vetted this potential danger in far greater detail and from a far more authoritative position than I, though I don't recall where (perhaps on his blog or in discussions here regarding "Mormon Studies").

I am not suggesting that MI will be joining anti-Mormon cottage industry, or anything close, but that if it bows to far to the god of academic secularism, it may end up inadvertently being an organ for challenging and loss of LDS faith. We'll see.

And with all this brouhaha, one thought that goes over and over and over in my mind was: Why did they consent to join BYU? I am certain, had I been in the room I would have said "Do not do it if you want it to stay strong and/or if you want to stay in charge." That would have been my thought based on other mergers and takeovers I have seen or been part of. I actually would have thought I erred for the first ... oh... maybe 5-6 years.

But am I wrong in this? No insult intended --- but doesn't it seem that FARMS did its best work prior to about 1998? (I am willing to be corrected if I got that wrong).

And doesn't that mean that this change will be helpful to the new start by Daniel Peterson and Company --- that they may yet achieve what FARMS did previously? (I do not expect MI to achieve that level -- because I don't even think it is trying).

I am an MI "outsider" as well, and so I can't speak to the why's and wherefore's of its decisions, and rather than second guess, I prefer to join you and Dr. Peterson and Bill and others in simply wishing the best for that honored institution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

So what I'm getting from this is that pretty much everything that made the old FARMS Review engaging, stimulating and provocative will be absent from this new publication. And it will only appear one time a year at that.

You are supposed to watch the teasers and pay no attention to what is behind the curtain.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just had a phone conversation with my friend, Blair Hodges. It helped to clarify some things in my mind.

Suffice it to say, though I am still disturbed about what transpired last summer, I believe the Maxwell Institute as currently constituted is poised to do some good work in the future, and I look forward to its output,

[diahman]

I appreciate you responding to one of my questions. Would you also be so kind as to explain what, exactly, is your "tares" metaphor in reference to in relation to "classic FARMS?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is what I have in mind: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/03/wheat-and-tares-apologetics/

[wenglund]

This is what I have in mind: http://www.patheos.c...es-apologetics/

Again, thanks for answering my question.

However, after reading through that blog article, I had to wonder if the article intended the ironically by, itself, drawing "battle lines" and setting itself up as gatekeeper of what kinds of apologetics is appropriate for BYU? It seemed to engage in the very thing it was objecting to at BYU.

What I don't understand is, apologetics, by definition, is "the systematic defense of a position," and is thus adversarial in nature, and it implicitly, if not explicitly, draws a distinction between attacker and defender, among other demarcations. So, why would it be inappropriate at BYU for apologetics that explicitly draws lines of demarcation? Why would it be inappropriate to do apologetics at BYU that fits the very essence of apologetics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[diahman]

Again, thanks for answering my question.

However, after reading through that blog article, I had to wonder if the article intended the ironically by, itself, drawing "battle lines" and setting itself up as gatekeeper of what kinds of apologetics is appropriate for BYU? It seemed to engage in the very thing it was objecting to at BYU.

What I don't understand is, apologetics, by definition, is "the systematic defense of a position," and is thus adversarial in nature, and it implicitly, if not explicitly, draws a distinction between attacker and defender, among other demarcations. So, why would it be inappropriate at BYU for apologetics that explicitly draws lines of demarcation? Why would it be inappropriate to do apologetics at BYU that fits the very essence of apologetics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

This is from comment 11 in the blog post I linked to: "There is a difference between being the gatekeeper of orthodoxy for the Church and the gatekeeper of scholarship in academia (or at BYU). Not that anyone would actually respect me as the latter, but I’m fine making a modified claim of this sort. IMO, anyone who makes an argument, makes some kind of claim to authority. I recognize that; but I do not think acting as an evaluator of scholarship is inappropriate, whereas I do think acting as a gatekeeper for the Church is."

I would add that I agree with you that apologetics is in many regards an endeavor that extends into most areas of discussion--we all make and defend claims. I don't think that apologetics, as such, shouldn't be done at BYU. I do think, though, that certain ways of making and defending claims are less applicable to BYU.

I find what the post describes as wheat and tares apologetics to be inappropriate for BYU, for many of the reasons laid out in the post. I suppose I can attempt to take up some of the points made. Here they are as stated in the blog post referenced above:

1. Because its primary purpose is to deligitimate someone as an authority on Mormonism, it does not provide a nuanced account of the person or movement under observation. It is not a study or an exercise in understanding. While evidence gathering and organizing is always a selective process where our own biases come into play, Wheat and Tares Apologetics tends to neglect evidence that might complicate the thesis the author is attempting to argue.
   
2. Wheat and Tares Apologetics employs a kind of consequentialist methodology where the ends justify the means. It does not need to aim for a holistic description of an individual or organization because its goal is to get its readers to no longer view the individual or organization as a legitimate authority on Mormonism. Because this is its goal, things such as study, nuanced description, and all other methodologies are subject to this end. For more on consequentialism in this sense see my previous post here. (As a tenuously related example, notice how The Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture goes beyond its stated aim in publishing things not about Mormon Scripture. What we see here, I believe, is a commitment to a consequentialist methodology aimed at strengthening faith which exceeds a commitment to the less consequentialist goal of interpreting scripture. Although I may certainly be wrong.)
   
3. Wheat and Tares Apologetics tends to draw too clear of a line in terms of how one is a wheat or tare.
   
4. Because of number 3, it creates the opportunity to demonize the tares. The tares are anti-Mormons, a regime, the junta, etc. Because many of those engaged in Wheat and Tares Apologetics also employ a “war” motif, the tares are the enemy, those we are at war with, and in some sense these Tares become less than human.
   
5. It sets up those who employ Wheat and Tares Apologetics as the gatekeepers of orthodoxy. They determine who is in and who is out. This gives them a de facto status in the LDS community, not simply as distributors of faithful information, but more as guardians at the door. The community can look to them to find out who is safe and who is not safe. This is given the further air of authority when this kind of apologetics is attached to BYU since BYU is so closely affiliated with the Church. IMO, this is one reason why appeals to authority have been so prevalent in the whole John Dehlin debacle–Wheat and Tares Apologists have set themselves up as the gatekeepers, so the only solution for the other side is to appeal to the authority above the gatekeepers; in this case, the General Authorities of the Church.
   
6. Wheat and Tares Apologetics can foster feelings of distrust when people realize that issues are more complicated than they have been portrayed by Wheat and Tares Apologists. When people come to realize that a Tare is not all bad, and even has some relevant things to say, it might end up undermining the credibility of Wheat and Tare Apologists; but since their status as gatekeeper defines orthodoxy, people who make this discovery are then put into a position of becoming a Tare themselves since to disagree with the gatekeepers is to be heterodox and opposed to the Church.
   
7. Wheat and Tares Apologetics neglects or obscures the larger issues at play by focusing on a person or organization. So in the case of John Dehlin, issues such as why many LDSs have found Mormon Stories appealing and how we deal with faith crises are neglected, or at least put on the back-burner, for the sake of discrediting Dehlin.
   

[Daniel Peterson]

This forum is a wonderful venue to discuss issues related to Mormonism. I would hope it doesn't become a Wailing Wall for some people who just can't seem to get over the fact that some changes took place at a particular Mormon Institution in a way that they didn't like. It is really disappointing to see so-called academics acting like spoiled children, intent on being a thorn in the side of people who are trying to effect changes.

What you airily dismiss as "some changes" seem very much bigger and more significant than that to those who founded and built and, for decades, led the organization.

Perhaps if folks could simply sit back and give it a year, perhaps they will see that the Maxwell Institute can remain a force for good, scholarly inquiry without the sniping apologetics of some past participants.

I expect that the Maxwell Institute will do good. Will it do the good that it might have done? That's the question.

There's no need for you to snipe.

For those clamoring for some statement of contrition, recognition, or clarification from the MI, grow up and move on.

My my.

Like I said, the Church does not comment on Disciplinary Council proceedings. I hope the MI continues to follow that model.

BYU isn't the Church, and this wasn't a "disciplinary council." And the comparison is misleading on multiple levels.

[Daniel Peterson]

I just had a phone conversation with my friend, Blair Hodges. It helped to clarify some things in my mind.

Suffice it to say, though I am still disturbed about what transpired last summer, I believe the Maxwell Institute as currently constituted is poised to do some good work in the future, and I look forward to its output,

Blair seems to be on a telephone offensive. He called me yesterday, and I'm not the only one he's been calling. He's working hard, it seems, as the Institute's publicist.

I have no doubt that the Maxwell institute will do good work in the future. (If, with its considerable resources of money and talent and full-time employee positions, it doesn't, that will be a scandal.)

Will it do the good that it could have done? No. Will it serve ordinary members of the Church, as opposed to scholars, in the same way that it sought to do for its first thirty-five years? Very probably not. Will it do equivalent but different good? Perhaps, even, greater but quite distinct good? Time will tell.

I'm not at war with the Maxwell Institute, and neither is The Interpreter Foundation. In fact, we wish the Institute well. (As an inspection of the "Other News" section of our website will readily show, we've faithfully announced Maxwell Institute events, publications, and lectures to our audience since we began, and we'll continue to do so.) Many of us still have friends there.

Were things handled well last summer? Not even close.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

deleted

Edited March 27, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

Blair seems to be on a telephone offensive. He called me yesterday, and I'm not the only one he's been calling. He's working hard, it seems, as the Institute's publicist.

Blair is bright and energetic. I told him that hiring him is the smartest thing the Maxwell Institute has done in many months.

I have no doubt that the Maxwell institute will do good work in the future. (If, with its considerable resources of money and talent and full-time employee positions, it doesn't, that will be a scandal.)

Will it do the good that it could have done? No. Will it serve ordinary members of the Church, as opposed to scholars, in the same way that it sought to do for its first thirty-five years? Very probably not. Will it do equivalent but different good? Perhaps, even, greater but quite distinct good? Time will tell.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

I'm not at war with the Maxwell Institute, and neither is The Interpreter Foundation. In fact, we wish the Institute well. (As an inspection of the "Other News" section of our website will readily show, we've faithfully announced Maxwell Institute events, publications, and lectures to our audience since we began, and we'll continue to do so.) Many of us still have friends there.

I've noticed that about the website. And I think your personal behavior throughout this entire scenario has been a model of decorum and fairness.

Were things handled well last summer? Not even close.

With that I am in wholehearted agreement.

[wenglund]

I find what the post describes as wheat and tares apologetics to be inappropriate for BYU, for many of the reasons laid out in the post. I suppose I can attempt to take up some of the points made. Here they are as stated in the blog post referenced above:

In that regard, and granting, for the sake of argument, that the seven items you referenced may even remotely describe some of the apologetics of classic FARMS (I don't believe they do), does your expressed sentiment apply across the whole expanse of academia, or just the field of religious or Mormon studies? For example, would you think it inappropriate for health and nutrition specialists to question the authority of chemist, Linus Pauling, and his claims about megadosage of Vitamin C?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

This is from comment 11 in the blog post I linked to: "There is a difference between being the gatekeeper of orthodoxy for the Church and the gatekeeper of scholarship in academia (or at BYU).

It is not being a "gatekeeper of orthodoxy" to use good, solid documentation to define orthodoxy then show how some person or entity does not conform to that definition.

I, too, disagree that the apologetics done formerly at the Maxwell Institute amounted to being "the gatekeeper of orthodoxy." Some self-serving but unorthodox individuals may have tried to depict it as such, but their claim is debatable.

[wenglund]

I, too, disagree that the apologetics done formerly at the Maxwell Institute amounted to being "the gatekeeper of orthodoxy."

Or, "gate keeper for the Church". Not even close. There is way too much straw in that man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Or, "gate keeper for the Church". Not even close. There is way too much straw in that man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Taken to its logical conclusion, virtually anyone who undertakes to defend the Church could be accused of being the a "gatekeeper of orthodoxy" or of the Church. To put it another way, one man's defender is another man's gatekeeper. It sounds very much like a standard talking-point for a new-order Mormon.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[diahman]

In that regard, and granting, for the sake of argument, that the seven items you referenced may even remotely describe some of the apologetics of classic FARMS (I don't believe they do), does your expressed sentiment apply across the whole expanse of academia, or just the field of religious or Mormon studies? For example, would you think it inappropriate for health and nutrition specialists to question the authority of chemist, Linus Pauling, and his claims about megadosage of Vitamin C?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know enough about Pauling to decide one way or the other; but no, these are not things that are unique to Mormon studies.

[diahman]

It is not being a "gatekeeper of orthodoxy" to use good, solid documentation to define orthodoxy then show how some person or entity does not conform to that definition.

I, too, disagree that the apologetics done formerly at the Maxwell Institute amounted to being "the gatekeeper of orthodoxy." Some self-serving but unorthodox individuals may have tried to depict it as such, but their claim is debatable.

Taken to its logical conclusion, virtually anyone who undertakes to defend the Church could be accused of being the a "gatekeeper of orthodoxy" or of the Church. To put it another way, one man's defender is another man's gatekeeper. It sounds very much like a standard talking-point for a new-order Mormon.

Taking it upon oneself to determine who is orthodox and who is not is to be a gatekeeper of orthodoxy. Taking it upon oneself to determine who makes good arguments and who makes bad arguments is to be a gatekeeper of argumentation. One can make good arguments to defend the Church without being a gatekeeper of orthodoxy. To say that Dehlin should be dismissed because he is inconsistent in his presentation of his ideas, because he talks about things he really doesn't understand, etc. is to be a gatekeeper of argumentation. To say that Dehlin is actually an exit counsellor masquerading as a faithful member is to be a gatekeeper of orthodoxy. I think we should leave it to the Church to police its own boundaries.

Notice how your comments quoted here hint in the direction of gatekeeping orthodoxy. For me to say that part of the classic FARMS approach is inappropriate for BYU brings suggestions of being a "self-serving but unorthodox" individual and a NOM.

In combination with the other things on the list, it makes sense why BYU/MI would want FARMS to leave behind this kind of apologetics. And it makes sense why some in charge of FARMS needed to be replaced if they insisted in continuing with it.

[diahman]

Will it do the good that it could have done? No. Will it serve ordinary members of the Church, as opposed to scholars, in the same way that it sought to do for its first thirty-five years? Very probably not. Will it do equivalent but different good? Perhaps, even, greater but quite distinct good? Time will tell.

How do you reconcile the first part of your statement with the second?