Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[CASteinman]

Can someone help me out with one or two questions?

What is "Mormon Studies"?

What does that term mean, particularly with respect to the Maxwell Institute?

Edited March 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bill Hamblin]

Can someone help me out with one or two questions?

What is "Mormon Studies"?

What does that term mean, particularly with respect to the Maxwell Institute?

Indeed, that is the question. It's apparently a secret. But you can get some sense of it from looking at the new associate editor of the new Reivew, Ben Park.

He's studying early modern American religion at Cambridge. He's definitely into seeing early Mormonism as a result of 19th century influences.

Here is his web page where he lists his publications.

http://benjaminepark.com/

He blogs a lot on the "Juvenile Instructor" blog. You can find his blogs here:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/author/ben/

Here's his take on the new Review

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/the-new-mormon-studies-review/#more-11721

If you want to know his views on how to do Mormon history properly see here:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/a-new-framework-for-a-new-generation-of-mormon-studies-the-conclusion-from-my-bushman-tribute-conference-paper/

[LifeOnaPlate]

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?

The blog isn't a pre-built theme, and neither will the new website be.

[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.

You know, Blair, I didn't just wake up one morning and decide I didn't like the Maxwell Institute any more, despite the fact that I had been a significant participant and contributor for much of my professional career. Something actually happened at the Maxwell Institute that caused the problems. I know you weren't there when it happened, but it really did. The problem will not be solved by failure to talk publicly about it, or by trying to silence the critics of the MI through sending secret dossiers to BYU administrators.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can someone help me out with one or two questions?

What is "Mormon Studies"?

What does that term mean, particularly with respect to the Maxwell Institute?

Key questions! Opinions are divided as to the exact definition of Mormon Studies. It may be a fundamentally contested category, which can lend some vibrancy to it despite the naysayers. It is new enough that it's still taking shape. I see it as a sub-field of religious studies, but that's just my personal view. I wrote a review in Dialogue of Steve Taysom's Mormon Studies Reader published by Signature Books. It gives a glimpse at the sort of thing scholars imagine when they think of "Mormon Studies."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/review-stephen-c-taysom-dimensions-of-faith-a-mormon-studies-reader/

Interestingly, Gerald Bradford (MI's executive director) wrote a piece on Mormonism in academia for the FARMS Review a few years ago which might help set the stage for what's happening now at the Institute:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=640&cat_id=404

As for the history side of things, you might check out this roundtable from the Journal of Mormon History a few years ago. The new editor of the MSR, Spencer Fluhman, participated:

"What We Will Do Now That New Mormon History Is Old: A Roundtable."

[LifeOnaPlate]

You know, Blair, I didn't just wake up one morning and decide I didn't like the Maxwell Institute any more, despite the fact that I had been a significant participant and contributor for much of my professional career. Something actually happened at the Maxwell Institute that caused the problems. I know you weren't there when it happened, but it really did. The problem will not be solved by failure to talk publicly about it, or by trying to silence the critics of the MI through sending secret dossiers to BYU administrators.

Give me a call any time, Bill. I'm not going to argue with you on message boards, though.

[Bill Hamblin]

Give me a call any time, Bill. I'm not going to argue with you on message boards, though.

My point is that for the good of the Maxwell Institute these issues should be discussed publicly. You owe it to all the scholars who have donated thousands of hours, and the donors who have donated millions of dollars.

By the way, I've sent you several private emails on the subject. But you never respond. I suspect that Jerry has told you not to.

[ERayR]

Give me a call any time, Bill. I'm not going to argue with you on message boards, though.

I never contributed to MI but did follow some of what was done there particularly on FARMS. I am intelligent enough to know that something happened there and that it appears to reflect badly on MI. For those of us who are in this realm I think someone from MI owes us a candid explanation of why.

[emarkp]

If you're not going to engage on a message board, why post in the first place?

Edited March 26, 2013 by emarkp

[LifeOnaPlate]

By the way, I've sent you several private emails on the subject. But you never respond. I suspect that Jerry has told you not to.

I've never received a single email from you, Bill.

[Bill Hamblin]

I've never received a single email from you, Bill.

That's odd. I just sent three tonight to blairhodges@byu.edu.

I sent a couple a few months ago too, but you never responded to those either.

[MormonMason]

I hate to say it but I think Elder Maxwell may well be rolling over in his grave in the near future... Sigh...

[emarkp]

Key questions! Opinions are divided as to the exact definition of Mormon Studies. It may be a fundamentally contested category, which can lend some vibrancy to it despite the naysayers. It is new enough that it's still taking shape. I see it as a sub-field of religious studies, but that's just my personal view. I wrote a review in Dialogue of Steve Taysom's Mormon Studies Reader published by Signature Books. It gives a glimpse at the sort of thing scholars imagine when they think of "Mormon Studies."

https://www.dialogue...studies-reader/

Interestingly, Gerald Bradford (MI's executive director) wrote a piece on Mormonism in academia for the FARMS Review a few years ago which might help set the stage for what's happening now at the Institute:

http://maxwellinstit...=640&cat_id=404

As for the history side of things, you might check out this roundtable from the Journal of Mormon History a few years ago. The new editor of the MSR, Spencer Fluhman, participated:

"What We Will Do Now That New Mormon History Is Old: A Roundtable."

wow. That's some of the most vacuous bilge I've ever read. Congrats on your new irrelevancy.

[CASteinman]

Well, I have to see what is going to happen.

My initial feelings are mixed but mostly negative as follows:

1. We probably have to engage the rest of the world of Academia in some meaningful way. Alas. If we resist that, we lose the field. We must be involved.

2. Its not just my parochialism, but I don't like how academics do things. They dress up in fancy words and I am not sure that they say much. I hate to feel that way, but I get a bit nauseated at thinking that we have to play in a sandbox like that. But, I guess there are people in the LDS Community who think of that is a "vibrant" thing. To me it feels squishy and a bit too ripe.

3. In reviewing others works like the New York Review of Books (something I could not stand to do nor could I stand to read) I wonder how this engagement will not devolve in many cases to apologetics -- which seems to me to be anathema there, these days. But if it does not engage in some apologetics, how is it not failing to do a good job?

4. (This is probably more of #2, but I have a visceral feeling about this) I am concerned that we are going to do a lot of "introspective" "navel gazing". I have almost never seen that sort of activity to be beneficial to accomplishment of anything meaningful. Will this end up being a sort of path to a thicket where, upon brushing aside some branches we observe all manner of eggheads preening and delousing one another in a manner not really interesting to the general population of the Church (or even about 5% of them)?

5. If we only review -- where is the original interesting research? Are we only going to review the original interesting research of others? Isn't that like choosing to have a career as a traffic cop -- forever sitting behind a radar gun and giving out citations? Except without actual lives involved. Can anything be more boring and less productive?

As you can probably see, a lot of this has a sort of an anti-intellectual theme. Which, I can assure you, a lot of people who know me would think was ironic -- but I am a poser by comparison to many of the people here. I don't think I am exactly jealous. I guess I don't easily see how this advances the cause of the Gospel in the World. I sort of see how it might -- but I think the thread that winds to that path is very small and narrow, and defining the mission as being a "reviewer" of other people's works seem to me to be already missing the mark.

But what do I know? I shall have to see how it goes. Out of small things proceed great things.

Edited March 26, 2013 by CASteinman

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's odd. I just sent three tonight to blairhodges@byu.edu.

I sent a couple a few months ago too, but you never responded to those either.

I check my work address while I'm at work, so I'll get to them in the morning. I've never received an email from you in the past, though, and I didn't have a BYU email address until February. We'll talk soon, then.

I never contributed to MI but did follow some of what was done there particularly on FARMS. I am intelligent enough to know that something happened there and that it appears to reflect badly on MI. For those of us who are in this realm I think someone from MI owes us a candid explanation of why.

That's a discussion that would simply never end. You've witnessed a bit of that here in this thread. If it reflects badly on us, all we can do is produce quality work going forward and wait for that fog to clear. I hope you and others will see what we have to offer and accept it or argue with it on its merits. This approach gives some people the advantage of telling the story in a way that best suits their self-interest or reflects their real disappointment, I recognize. As for me, I can say from my limited vantage point I'm simply glad to be a small part of the current projects. We're glad to have the support of BYU administration and many others who wish for our success, and who have encouraged the present direction. I'm quite serious in my offer to discuss the Institute over the phone or in person with any of you. I can't promise a long conversation, but I've found that one-on-one discussion can get a bit more accomplished than message board competition can.

If you're not going to engage on a message board, why post in the first place?

Because there are some people I don't mind discussing things with on message boards and other people who I don't want to engage.

Time for bed. Check the new blog and facebook for future updates. Now that we're getting our own platforms off the ground I won't be around on the boards often, but people can reach me through the private messages or at the email address Bill posted above. (During work hours!)

Thanks to all the well-wishers in this discussion, too.

[ERayR]

My question is are you really intent on turning MI into an irrelevant site for the pontifications of of the self appointed elite.

[CASteinman]

As an add to what I said -- I would point to an example of an "egghead" whose teachings and thoughts do not strike me as a sort of priestly mumbo jumbo chanting in a way that is unapproachable:

Richard Feynman.

If anyone has never heard him teaching the most exotic things about relativity and quantum mechanics, he manages to make it come through without putting himself too far above you -- yet he actually is -- he is on the level of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Hawking. In someways, he seems to me to be above them all except Newton.

Here are two examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeBkMzSLA8w

I admire his ability to be brilliant and yet explain things at my simple level. And vocabulary is a key aspect of this.

It seems in the Humanities, vocabulary is sometimes used to achieve some other end.

[Wolfgang Wolfgramm]

You know, Blair, I didn't just wake up one morning and decide I didn't like the Maxwell Institute any more, despite the fact that I had been a significant participant and contributor for much of my professional career. Something actually happened at the Maxwell Institute that caused the problems. I know you weren't there when it happened, but it really did. The problem will not be solved by failure to talk publicly about it, or by trying to silence the critics of the MI through sending secret dossiers to BYU administrators.

Secret dossiers? That sounds sinister. Is it true Blair?

[David T]

The idea that the current focus is on presenting Mormon Studies Review to be a fruitful source for reviews and interactions with the increasingly relevant academic field of Mormon Studies does not mean that this is the only plans NAMI has up its sleeves, or that it's abandoning ancient and biblical research. It means the the Mormon Studies Review title has been repurposed to focus on Mormon Studies.

This seems absolutely reasonable. It a journal desires to interact with a field and relevent material involved in that field, dedicate it to that field. Don't make it a catch-all, or a mish-mash, just because of the traditions of its founding fathers that, to be fair, didn't develop in a world where Mormon Studies as-it-sits-today was a relevent field. It really is a different time.

I don't claim any insider information. But what I do not see in this announcement is an announcement that it will not also be seeking (either now or in time) to rework its other publications and materials to produce focused scholarship on those areas. I don't count out the Studies in the Bible and Antiquity maintaining and/or adding to its list of credentialed Biblical Scholars, and having them expand in their own way, in its own dedicated field. Journal of the Book of Mormon and other Restoration Scripture also has its own important niche.

Right now, they are announcing the New Review. And I think it appears exactly as it should be. The blog will be an additional nice and dynamic supplement to the published journal.

As much as others have their pet favorite parts of the NAMI they need answers for here and now, I see the restructuring as something that will be understood as a major boon for the utility, resources, and respectability of the enterprise. These things take time. I'm glad time is being taken to make sure this is done right, rather than simply right now.

Of course I look forward to perusing the publications. But I'm content with waiting for them.

For others who can't wait, Interpreter is regularly promoting its quantity.

Edited March 26, 2013 by David T

[diahman]

My sense is that the primary part of the classic FARMS approach that's being left behind is this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2013/03/wheat-and-tares-apologetics/

Of those on the editorial advisory board many have contributed to what was FARMS; and further at least two scholars (Hardy and Givens) have publicly stated their belief in the historicity of the BoM in books published by university presses; and at least two have taught in BYU's Religious Education (Fluhman and Underwood). I see no reason to believe that FARMS has been abandoned or left behind by the MI. I see no reason to believe that apologetics will not be done at the MI (unless by "apologetics" we mean wheat and tares apologetics). Much of understanding and arguing for the BoM as an ancient text, for instance, can by done by the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, which in 2012 even republished Elder Oaks' article "Worthy of Another Look: The Historicity of the Book of Mormon". Not that the MSR needs to exclude this kind of scholarship, but this seems to be one of Bill's biggest complaints.

[sethpayne]

My question is are you really intent on turning MI into an irrelevant site for the pontifications of of the self appointed elite.

Isn't it obvious with advisory board like this! Those self appointed elite!

• 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
  

[Mark Beesley]

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.

[Mark Beesley]

That's it? A blog and a board of editors?

Did you miss the title of the thread? Do you know what the word Teaser means?

[wenglund]

Did you miss the title of the thread? Do you know what the word Teaser means?

I could be wrong, but I believe the word "Teaser" in the subject line is in regards to this thread, not the blog. In other words, last Saturday Blair posted here a teaser (without a spoiler) for what was to later be announced on the blog. So, Bill's disappointment is understandable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

Your last sentence appears to me as you doing the wailing as well as projecting. Hypocrisy is not an effective means of persuasion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2013 by wenglund