Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[David T]

Just as was feared. Absolutely no concern for the Book of Mormon and its relationship with the ancient world. Shameful.

Exactly! Those in the know understand that Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies, and the William (Bill) Gay Research Chair, are actually codenames for the duplicitous Sunstone and Dialogue.

Edited April 3, 2013 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

They have laid out the scope of their initiatives, and categorized them quite nicely on the new blog post:

http://www.maxwellin...sion-statement/

I like the verbiage in the mission statement about nurturing discipleship among the Latter-day Saints.

And I'm particularly fond of this passage in one of the initiatives:

Publications for general readers consist of research and interpretation of the contents and contexts of ancient and modern LDS scripture, as well as scholarship that commends and defends the faith.

(italics emphasis mine)

[David T]

Bumping, because so many of the questions and assumptions presented in this thread about the course of the new NAMI are addressed in the above linked blog post. Wouldn't want those who have been posing those questions to miss this.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was involved in developing that language of "commending and defending the faith." This is nothing new.

We'll see what the Institute actually produces over the coming months and years.

Here are two representative passages from the 1936 Soviet Constitution that was composed and ratified under the late Josef Stalin:

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

1. freedom of speech;
   
2. freedom of the press;
   
3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
   
4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
   

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

Mission statements are nice.

Please note that I'm not comparing the current Maxwell Institute leadership to Mr. Stalin. I'm simply saying that theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another, and that we shall see.

[CASteinman]

Please note that I'm not comparing the current Maxwell Institute leadership to Mr. Stalin. I'm simply saying that theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another, and that we shall see.

Actually the most interesting thing about your quote was this:

"These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights."

I suspect that when rights are enforced by gifts from government, freedoms are lost.

[CASteinman]

Just as was feared. Absolutely no concern for the Book of Mormon and its relationship with the ancient world. Shameful.

This looks like it might have it:

Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies

Deals principally with the Book of Mormon in ancient and modern settings, as well as with the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and related subjects.

William (Bill) Gay Research Chair

Focuses on study directly related to ancient LDS scripture, particularly the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.

[sethpayne]

This looks like it might have it:

Oh CASteinman, you just aren't looking closely enough to see through the facade.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was involved in developing that language of "commending and defending the faith." This is nothing new.

I thought I could detect the Daniel Peterson fingerprints on that phrasing. Small wonder that that's the part I like best.

We'll see what the Institute actually produces over the coming months and years.

Here are two representative passages from the 1936 Soviet Constitution that was composed and ratified under the late Josef Stalin:

Mission statements are nice.

Please note that I'm not comparing the current Maxwell Institute leadership to Mr. Stalin. I'm simply saying that theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another, and that we shall see.

As much as I like and approve of this newly released mission statement, I did find myself wondering why all that could not have been achieved without dismissing the previous MSR editorial team.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh CASteinman, you just aren't looking closely enough to see through the facade.

CASteinman, are you aware that sethpayne is writing in a sarcastic vein?

[diahman]

As much as I like and approve of this newly released mission statement, I did find myself wondering why all that could not have been achieved without dismissing the previous MSR editorial team.

Perhaps because instead of saying "theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another," the previous MSR editorial team likens others to Stalin while qualifying it with sufficient plausible deniability such that when people point out what they've done, the previous MSR editorial team can accuse these people of not reading closely.

[David T]

Perhaps because instead of saying "theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another," the previous MSR editorial team likens others to Stalin while qualifying it with sufficient plausible deniability such that when people point out what they've done, the previous MSR editorial team can accuse these people of not reading closely.

I have a family member who does the same thing, and then when you call them on it, they act all shocked that you would even suggest there was mal-intent involved. It allows them to make insults, without being called on it. This passive aggressive behavior is actually a significant part of why we actively avoid a need to be in contact with the person, and why most of our other actual problems can not be reasonably addressed and resolved.

[morgan.deane]

Perhaps because instead of saying "theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another," the previous MSR editorial team likens others to Stalin while qualifying it with sufficient plausible deniability such that when people point out what they've done, the previous MSR editorial team can accuse these people of not reading closely.

I had almost the same exact thoughts as Daniel Peterson, and almost the same example came into my mind when I thought about the difference between what is on paper and the actual conduct of an organization. I thought it was an excellent example of how things can sound nice on paper but be very different in reality. (And like I said, it crossed my mind before he used it as an example.) Since the nice parts of the mission statement were apparently written by Daniel Peterson before he was fired, I think he speaks with some authority on the difference between rhetoric and reality. I didn't see anything offensive about using the example and I didn't feel he was comparing anybody to Stalin, but rather using a very good example to illustrate his point.

So I'm completely unconvinced by a mission statement, and remain cautiously optimistic until I see what they actually produce. When I see somebody complain about a non offensive statement, complain about the qualification that made it even less worthy of offense, and generally make somebody an offender for a word, I am even more wary.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps because instead of saying "theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another," the previous MSR editorial team likens others to Stalin while qualifying it with sufficient plausible deniability such that when people point out what they've done, the previous MSR editorial team can accuse these people of not reading closely.

One doesn't have to read very closely to take cognizance of this qualifier:

Please note that I'm not comparing the current Maxwell Institute leadership to Mr. Stalin. I'm simply saying that theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another, and that we shall see.

In fact it is so clearly expressed, one would have to work very hard, it seems to me, to misconstrue the message.

Often, the clearest and most persuasive way to make a point is to use an extreme example from real life to show how it applies. Of course, if one uses this technique, one ought to be careful to make it clear that the comparison only applies in a limited respect and to define what that application is -- as Daniel did here.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[diahman]

I had almost the same exact thoughts as Daniel Peterson, and almost the same example came into my mind when I thought about the difference between what is on paper and the actual conduct of an organization. I thought it was an excellent example of how things can sound nice on paper but be very different in reality. (And like I said, it crossed my mind before he used it as an example.)

Yet you didn't publicly state the similarity in a context where others are highly likely to attribute it to mal-intent.

Since the nice parts of the mission statement were apparently written by Daniel Peterson before he was fired, I think he speaks with some authority on the difference between rhetoric and reality.

So, in your opinion, why didn't the MI simply not adopt Dan's parts?

[Scott Lloyd]

So, in your opinion, why didn't the MI simply not adopt Dan's parts?

Perhaps because they were eager to assure a skeptical public that they are not abandoning the apologetics aspects of the mission and they don't intend to brush aside the interests and needs of the Relief Society president in Parowan in favor of an exclusive focus on ivory-tower academics.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

As much as I like and approve of this newly released mission statement, I did find myself wondering why all that could not have been achieved without dismissing the previous MSR editorial team.

That's one of my areas of wonderment, too. And I know (because he told me so) that Jack Welch raised that very question with the current director of the Maxwell Institute quite soon after the June purge, but received no satisfactory answer.

Perhaps because instead of saying "theoretical statements are one thing, while performance is another," the previous MSR editorial team likens others to Stalin while qualifying it with sufficient plausible deniability such that when people point out what they've done, the previous MSR editorial team can accuse these people of not reading closely.

First of all, I have to compliment diahman on his sleuthing skills. I'm not merely Dan Peterson, but, as he points out, "The Previous MSR Editorial Team." My other name is Legion. They speak through Me.

Second, while I've been quite open about the fact that I'm not happy about recent actions on the part of the leadership of the Maxwell Institute, I really thought that I had successfully hidden my belief that that leadership is responsible for the Gulag, the Ukrainian terror-famine, the enslavement of eastern Europe, and the deaths of scores of millions of people. But diahman has pierced through the pretense and discerned my fiendish plan. Begrudging kudos to him!

[Daniel Peterson]

Often, the clearest and most persuasive way to make a point is to use an extreme example from real life to show how it applies. Of course, if one uses this technique, one ought to be careful to make it clear that the comparison only applies in a limited respect and to define what that application is -- as Daniel did here.

Tut tut. People who use dramatic examples to make their point clear deserve to be morally condemned and, very possibly, to be shunned.

And if they've already pointed out that their examples aren't to be taken as anything more than dramatic illustrations? Why, they should be stigmatized as passive-aggressive poseurs and condemned with redoubled fervor.

[Daniel Peterson]

So, in your opinion, why didn't the MI simply not adopt Dan's parts?

This is roughly the twentieth iteration of the Maxwell Institute's mission statement of which I'm aware.

Beyond that, who knows?

You surely don't, unless you're one of 1-4 people.

[ERayR]

Perhaps because they were eager to assure a skeptical public that they are not abandoning the apologetics aspects of the mission and they don't intend to brush aside the interests and needs of the Relief Society president in Parowan in favor of an exclusive focus on ivory-tower academics.

And yet I still get the "hey look over here don't look behind the curtain" feeling

[Mark Beesley]

Just because it should be restated, with emphasis . . .

I have a family member who does the same thing, and then when you call them on it, they act all shocked that you would even suggest there was mal-intent involved. It allows them to make insults, without being called on it. This passive aggressive behavior is actually a significant part of why we actively avoid a need to be in contact with the person, and why most of our other actual problems can not be reasonably addressed and resolved.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, Mark, I do appreciate your insinuation that I posted in bad faith, that, despite my flat denial, I had ulterior and bad motives. I really do. It's so conducive to civil conversation to insist that somebody else is disingenuous.

Thank you for your charity.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Bro: Dude! I just picked up some killer oranges! You oughta score one dood! The color is so orangey you'll freak!

Dude: Wait a minute Bro. Just because it's orangey doesn't mean I'll freak. I once had this apple - green as your mamma's vinyl couch cover. But it had a worm in it bro. I almost blew chunks!

Bro: So wait Dude - why you sayin' my oranges got worms? Major uncool dude. You're sayin' my oranges make you barf? I'm hurt, man.

Edited April 4, 2013 by LoudmouthMormon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, Mark, I do appreciate your insinuation that I posted in bad faith, that, despite my flat denial, I had ulterior and bad motives. I really do. It's so conducive to civil conversation to insist that somebody else is disingenuous.

Thank you for your charity.

How dare you judge Mark like that. Lol.

Mark, like all good liberals, only have the best inentions. After all the intent justifies the ends.

[Zeta-Flux]

This is roughly the twentieth iteration of the Maxwell Institute's mission statement of which I'm aware.

Beyond that, who knows?

You surely don't, unless you're one of 1-4 people.

Are you now comparing MI to the borg? Hi, I'm 2 of 4.

Shame on you. Shame.

[diahman]

Often, the clearest and most persuasive way to make a point is to use an extreme example from real life to show how it applies.

Or, you could just choose a more accurate example.

Second, while I've been quite open about the fact that I'm not happy about recent actions on the part of the leadership of the Maxwell Institute, I really thought that I had successfully hidden my belief that that leadership is responsible for the Gulag, the Ukrainian terror-famine, the enslavement of eastern Europe, and the deaths of scores of millions of people. But diahman has pierced through the pretense and discerned my fiendish plan. Begrudging kudos to him!

Dan, an honest question: why did you choose the Stalin example?

And please note, I don't think you believe that the MI leadership is responsible for the Gulag, etc.