Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[Calm]

Blair, considering Bill's observation about the lack of anyone qualified to comment or advise on matters related to antiquity, will FARMS be dropping the "AR" or merely maintaining the name for continuity's sake? Or will the new journal still have an ancient aspect?

I believe they have already dropped the name completely:

For twenty-three years the FARMS Review published review essays to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books and other publications on topics related to the Latter-day Saint religious tradition. It also published substantial freestanding essays that made further contributions to the field of Mormon studies. It will be superseded by the new Mormon Studies Review.

http://maxwellinstit...cations/review/

We are proud of the accomplishments of the FARMS Review and are pleased to make its past issues freely available on our website. But to better position the new Mormon Studies Review within its academic discipline, we are assembling a board of scholars in this field to advise us and will appoint a new editorial team. We regret that we must suspend publication during this period of reorganization and reorientation, but we are certain that our current—and many new—readers will find the new Mormon Studies Review a valuable scholarly resource for the discipline.

If the scholars on the board are indications of the field that the MSR will be focusing on, it would definitely appear to be a new direction. Edited March 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[David T]

That's what we've been told, but we actually don't have anything that concretely illustrates what their new approach will be, other than Bradford's turgid and lofty ode to New Mormon Studies. So far, we have no actual examples of what that will look like.

If you're familiar with the writings of the editor, and named members of the board, then I believe you will have plenty of excellent examples.

Much groundbreaking, fascinating, and enlightening material has come (and still is, consistently) from members of the board that has been, for me, not only extremely educational, but also highly faith promoting. Material that, while not being its primary intent, has indeed had extremely useful apologetic value.

Edited March 25, 2013 by David T

[jwhitlock]

That's what we've been told, but we actually don't have anything that concretely illustrates what their new approach will be, other than Bradford's turgid and lofty ode to New Mormon Studies. So far, we have no actual examples of what that will look like.

But we do have John Dehlin's gushing endorsement, proudly displayed on a Facebook page! Who's next? James White? Rob Bowman?

[Bill Hamblin]

If you're familiar with the writings of the editor, and named members of the board, then I believe you will have plenty of excellent examples.

Much groundbreaking, fascinating, and enlightening material has come (and still is, consistently) from members of the board that has been, for me, not only extremely educational, but also highly faith promoting. Material that, while not being its primary intent, has indeed had extremely useful apologetic value.

Remember one very important thing: no one objects to doing Mormon Studies this way. They object to destroying classic FARMS to do it.

[sethpayne]

But we do have John Dehlin's gushing endorsement, proudly displayed on a Facebook page! Who's next? James White? Rob Bowman?

These endorsements are pretty good too:

• Philip L. Barlow, Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, Utah State University
  
• Richard L. Bushman, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, emeritus, Columbia University
  
• Douglas J. Davies, Professor of Theology and Religion, Durham University
  
• Eric A. Eliason, Professor of English, Brigham Young University
  
• James E. Faulconer, Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding, Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young University
  
• Kathleen Flake, Associate Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University
  
• Terryl L. Givens, James A. Bostwick Chair of English and Professor of Literature and Religion, University of Richmond
  
• Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law and Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania
  
• Matthew J. Grow, Director of Publications, Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  
• Grant Hardy, Professor of History and Religious Studies, University of North Carolina—Asheville
  
• David F. Holland, Associate Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  
• Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  
• Patrick Q. Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University
  
• Quincy D. Newell, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Wyoming
  
• Grant Underwood, Professor of History, Brigham Young University
  
• 
  

[Curtis Weber]

To be certain, the new advisory board is a veritable role call of the brightest stars or current Mormon Studies; I admire or am at least interested in most if not all of these individuals and their work. But has the MI officially abandoned ancient studies (aside from METI, etc.)?

[Bill Hamblin]

These endorsements are pretty good too:

• Philip L. Barlow, Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, Utah State University
  
• Richard L. Bushman, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, emeritus, Columbia University
  
• Douglas J. Davies, Professor of Theology and Religion, Durham University
  
• Eric A. Eliason, Professor of English, Brigham Young University
  
• James E. Faulconer, Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding, Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young University
  
• Kathleen Flake, Associate Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University
  
• Terryl L. Givens, James A. Bostwick Chair of English and Professor of Literature and Religion, University of Richmond
  
• Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law and Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania
  
• Matthew J. Grow, Director of Publications, Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
  
• Grant Hardy, Professor of History and Religious Studies, University of North Carolina—Asheville
  
• David F. Holland, Associate Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  
• Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  
• Patrick Q. Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University
  
• Quincy D. Newell, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Wyoming
  
• Grant Underwood, Professor of History, Brigham Young University
  
• 
  

It is an impressive list. On the other hand, an advisory board has little to do with the actual operations of the journal. They do big picture advising. And as I said, no one objects to this type of Mormon Studies. There was simply no reason to destroy FARMS in order to do it.

Not to mention the fact that there are already plenty of outlets for this type of scholarship: BYUS, JMH, JWHS, etc.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[tyler90az]

I like the design and can not wait for the full site to be rolled out. It is also nice to see the Institute will have a social media presence. The old was great and the new will continue to be great I am sure.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Curtis, as others have noted, we aren't FARMS anymore, and haven't been for several years. As for ancient studies, they're definitely still on the table, no question. Keep in mind a full new website is still under construction which will highlight this stuff. It will contain portals for all of our main initiatives, including METI, CPART, the Journal of Book of Mormon and other Restoration Scripture, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, etc. We're also still involved in Royal Skousen's ongoing critical text project on the Book of Mormon. In other words, the Institute isn't limited to the output of the new Mormon Studies Review. The LDS Standard Works are an integral part of studying Mormonism, so of course they will continue to be the focus of research here at the Maxwell Institute.

Bill, re: winter. The first day of spring this year was March 20, so winter refers to the one coming up, (although it was snowing this week on the Wasatch Front).

I'm going to be in and out, so I may not have time to respond to everyone here. Don't hesitate to contact me directly at blairhodges[at]byu.edu, or through the pm feature here. If anyone is concerned about anyone "destroying FARMS" I invite you to contact me directly. I don't agree with that characterization, but I'm not going to hash it out on the message boards. I'm more than happy, however, to speak with people directly about it whenever I can. In the meantime, keep your eyes on the blog, facebook, twitter, as we have more announcements on the horizon.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm going to be in and out, so I may not have time to respond to everyone here. Don't hesitate to contact me directly at blairhodges[at]byu.edu, or through the pm feature here. If anyone is concerned about anyone "destroying FARMS" I invite you to contact me directly. I don't agree with that characterization, but I'm not going to hash it out on the message boards. I'm more than happy, however, to speak with people directly about it whenever I can. In the meantime, keep your eyes on the blog, facebook, twitter, as we have more announcements on the horizon.

I think a public clarification and engagement of these issues would be most helpful.

[cinepro]

To be certain, the new advisory board is a veritable role call of the brightest stars or current Mormon Studies; I admire or am at least interested in most if not all of these individuals and their work. But has the MI officially abandoned ancient studies (aside from METI, etc.)?

I agree. I'm not quite as steeped in the world of Mormon Studies as others are, but the people on that list have written some of my favorite Mormon studies books. I absolutely love Kathleen Flake's book on the Reed Smoot trial, and Philip Barlow's "Mormons and the Bible". And whichever Grant did the reader's edition of the Book of Mormon. And of course Givens and Bushman are monumental. I suspect if someone were to put together a dream list of contributors or advisors or whatever they are, it wouldn't be much different than that list. Obviously at least one of the former MI staff would be on that list, but for what it is, it's a great indicator of what might happen over the next few years for the MI.

I join with Bill in my anxiousness to see the MI move forward quickly (with a list of contributors like that, who wouldn't?), but I understand these things take time.

Edited March 26, 2013 by cinepro

[wenglund]

I used to always hear the phrase "they can leave, but they can't leave it alone..." and I never got it until now.

So...after you have been exposed for years to daily rants against the Church by nojn-founding members who left the Church under their own volition, it wasn't until you saw a single pragmatic comment from a founding member who was ousted, that suddenly the light of understanding dawns? Brilliant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

So...after you have been exposed for years to daily rants against the Church by nojn-founding members who left the Church under their own volition, it wasn't until you saw a single pragmatic comment from a founding member who was ousted, that suddenly the light of understanding dawns? Brilliant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I recognized the error of my ways and changed it.

[wenglund]

Yes, I recognized the error of my ways and changed it.

Your a good man!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think a public clarification and engagement of these issues would be most helpful.

I realize that, but I've spent too much time on the message boards in the past to have much faith in my ability to effectively communicate in such a setting. I also know there is little the Maxwell Institute can do that will pass without criticism from some direction. That's one of the reasons I'm satisfied to talk one-on-one about these things, as well as to let the Institute's fruits tell our story. I think we'll have more clarity as our new website comes online, as the journals are issued, as blog posts accumulate, as the lectures continue, as books begin to appear, and people have more concrete material to discuss.

For any other questions directed at me in particular, shoot me an email or a pm.

[wenglund]

I think a public clarification and engagement of these issues would be most helpful.

Wouldn't that run the risk of venturing inadvertently into apologia, personalizing, and potential unpleasantness, somewhat contrary to the "new direction" for MI--though we are talking about modern rather than ancient Mormon-related issues?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2013 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hey, y'all. I put a post up today over at By Common Consent about the new Maxwell Institute Blog, slated to appear this coming Monday. The first post will have a really exciting announcement. No spoilers here, though. If you want to be notified with the address when the blog goes live, subscribe to our new Twitter feed, @MI_BYU, or check back here or at BCC for the link. I’ll add it as soon as it’s available. As you might guess, it's a super busy time right now, so I'll be in and out. If you have any direct questions, comments or suggestions, etc. feel free to email me, blairhodges[@]byu.edu.

Thanks!

Lately I am a little turned off by the politics and infighting over there, so not caring much what is written. Or what seems to be portrayed as such by the many threads about it. But thanks for the heads up...who knows maybe when it comes to anything connected to the Church, I expect too much?

[Bill Hamblin]

I realize that, but I've spent too much time on the message boards in the past to have much faith in my ability to effectively communicate in such a setting. I also know there is little the Maxwell Institute can do that will pass without criticism from some direction. That's one of the reasons I'm satisfied to talk one-on-one about these things, as well as to let the Institute's fruits tell our story. I think we'll have more clarity as our new website comes online, as the journals are issued, as blog posts accumulate, as the lectures continue, as books begin to appear, and people have more concrete material to discuss.

For any other questions directed at me in particular, shoot me an email or a pm.

I find it odd that you claim you don't have time to discuss these matters in public, but want dozens of people to send you messages privately. Won't that take more time, not less?

Will you answer the following questions:

1- Why is no one from “classic FARMS” on the the advisory board of the New Review?

2- Why is there no one involved with ancient studies on the advisory board of the New Review? This implies ancient studies related to Mormonism are not on the agenda, correct?

3- Since there are non-members on the advisory board, this implies you will not be doing apologetics on the new Review, correct?

These seem obvious implications of the new Review. No ancient studies; no apologetics. Have I misunderstood?

[Curtis Weber]

I may have mistakenly understood that MI was an umbrella organization, that FARMS still existed under that umbrella. I'm pretty sure Nibley's One Eternal Round--a birthday gift to myself 3 years ago--was published under the FARMS name and logo. So is there an official date when FARMS ceased to exist? Just curious....

[David T]

I find it odd that you claim you don't have time to discuss these matters in public, but want dozens of people to send you messages privately. Won't that take more time, not less?

Will you answer the following questions:

1- Why is no one from “classic FARMS” on the the advisory board of the New Review?

2- Why is there no one involved with ancient studies on the advisory board of the New Review? This implies ancient studies related to Mormonism are not on the agenda, correct?

3- Since there are non-members on the advisory board, this implies you will not be doing apologetics on the new Review, correct?

These seem obvious implications of the new Review. No ancient studies; no apologetics. Have I misunderstood?

It looks like the ancient stuff will be sufficiently covered under the JBMoRS and Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, separate publications' without needing to spill over into the Review - which looks to be focused on a Review of and interaction with the field of Mormon Studies. I might be mistaken, but it seems perfectly logical to me.

Edited March 26, 2013 by David T

[Gervin]

I find it odd that you claim you don't have time to discuss these matters in public, but want dozens of people to send you messages privately. Won't that take more time, not less?

It's a generational thing, trending toward messaging over the public discussion. The kids are basically taking over, and I'm quite ready for them to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/business/media/nick-daloisio-17-sells-summly-app-to-yahoo.html?hp&_r=0'

[Wolfgang Wolfgramm]

Congrats to the new editor, Blair, the rest of the staff. I do hope ancient studies persists. I think the market for apologetics is probably as strong as ever, but the Interpreter seems well-positioned to provide that. I think the whole switch was mishandled and bungled though.

[Bill Hamblin]

It looks like the ancient stuff will be sufficiently covered under the JBMoRS and Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, separate publications' without needing to spill over into the Review - which looks to be focused on a Review of and interaction with the field of Mormon Studies. I might be mistaken, but it seems perfectly logical to me.

Well not exactly. The SBA produces one volume a year, averaging 4-5 articles. Interpreter does that many articles every month. The articles are generally good, but rarely about the BOM.

The JBMRS produces two issues a year, with again 4 articles per issue (+1 reprint). However, many of these are actually about the BOM in its 19th century context. Not counting the reprints, about half the articles for the past four years have been on the BOM as an ancient text, the rest about 19th century context for the BOM.

So we are really talking about the new Maxwell Institute producing about 8 articles a year on antiquity, and only four a year on the BOM and antiquity. That's two months worth of production at Interpreter.

We should also note that Paul Hoskisson is stepping down as head of the Willes Center in a few weeks, and as editor of the JBMRS later this year. So his successor should be another indication of the direction of the new Maxwell Institute. Stay tuned.

[Bit]

I'm a little disappointed that it's just a simple Wordpress site with a pre-built theme, Blair. Is the main MI site going to be WP as well?

[CASteinman]

It appears that my comment at the MI Facebook page has been deleted. Understandable, but still makes me sad.

What was your comment?