Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"I guess they don't make things like they used to?"

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, I've responded to some requests for comment on this by posting something over on my blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/03/a-few-thoughts-on-the-latest-announcement-from-the-new-maxwell-institute.html

[wenglund]

In trying to sort out and make sense of the "change" at MI, it occurred to me that the "change" may go deeper than philosophic differences, and might have more to do with a shift, unintentional or otherwise, from a quasi business model to an academic model. Let me explain.

The fundamental difference in these two models is their divergent markets (customer bases and driving forces). For business models, the customer is the "buyer" of the product, and so the driving force is demand, and the axiom is: adequately satisfy demand or perish. Whereas, with the academic model, the customer is the academic system, including its oft agenda-driven funding. and so the driving force is supply, and the axiom is: publish or perish.

The success of each, though, is dependent upon delivering what their respective customers want.

From what I can tell (people more knowledgeable than I can correct me), FARMS was formed as an independent organization in response to demand created by the onslaught of anti-Mormonism and the counter-cult industry. The sheer volume of material critical of the Church, and the vulnerability and needs of investigators and members, demanded a response. Over the years, FARMS has been sensitive to their customers needs and satisfied their demand, and rather than perishing, it became very successful. In short, while FARMS took an academic approach in producing their apologetic product, their model was initially quasi business.

However, for whatever reasons, the decision was made to bring FARMS under the BYU umbrella, and the name of the organization was changed to MI. And, even though for some time MI continued to operate according to the quasi business model, I suspect that there was some incompatibility between their model and the academic model of BYU, and so it may have seemed only natural, though perhaps not necessarily desirable to all parties, for MI to reduce or eliminate the incompatibility by essentially shifting, itself, to an academic model.

If I am correct, this meant a change in customer-bases to whom the MI organization would be responsive. It meant that many of us who were once the customers, and for whom MI fulfilled our needs and demand, were no longer the customers, and the new customers have now become academia and the educational enterprise.

So, it is somewhat understandable that those of us who were once customers, would feel a sense of loss--temporarily, as it turns out, given the meteoric rise of the Interpreter. It is kind of like the disappointment people might feel in learning that the leading company that had built their homes over the last several decades, will no longer be building homes, but building schools instead.

It also is understandable that those who were deeply involved in the founding and maintaining of the organization would feel a profound sense of loss over the fundamental change, particularly given their longstanding commitment to and mutually loyal relationships with their past customers, and their legitimate concern about important needs and demands not being met.

Even more so, given that MI's new customer base may, in a way, inadvertently factor into increasing the very demand for which MI was created to begin with, it is understandable that the founders and active participants and former customers would be concerned that the organization may somewhat become the very thing it was initially designed to oppose. There is legitimate concern that the anecdote may become part of the disease.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2013 by wenglund

[David T]

When FARMS was created, it filled needs from a massive void, in many different fields, that no one else was tackling in any legitimate way.

Now, the field of Mormon Studies has come up from many individuals who were raised on FARMS. The academic side of exploring and illuminating our history has been taken up by many voices, and become a respected academic field. The very act of making it academic has done MASSIVE good. As has been said, much of the work done in Mormon Studies has far-reaching apologetic value, because it engages relevant disciplines outside of Mormonism, applies them to our history and context, and explores and brings out many things of value gone unnoticed, uncontextualized, and misunderstood.

Many strongly polemic and criticial arguments become moot, or are actually full on addressed and grappled with. Re-formulating the portion of FARMS that dealt with this overlap and bringing it into communication with this powerful and enlightening movement which actually is having current and relevant effect in and outside the Church (Massively in depth and positive Mormon histories and biographies published by Oxford University Press?!) is to be encouraged.

There are other aspects of the old FARMS which do not have equivalent fields to orient themselves with. I really do see a benefit of noting the separate fields and purposes, and adjusting and re-aligning accordingly to the present need.

It's a new world than it was in the old days of FARMS. This realignment is acknowledgement of it. And I think it's okay to recognize the important strides made and voids filled in the past that have led to a new generation that learned from it, and then went further.

I believe we will see that all the different efforts going on will still see to the present needs, but distributed and presented in ways more appropriate to the needs, fields, and options available in today's world.

Clearly, others don't think this is the case. We'll each have to wait and see.

[Scott Lloyd]

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-

It puts me in mind of this classic 1980s TV commercial for a famous fast-food chain.

[wenglund]

The very act of making it academic has done MASSIVE good. As has been said, much of the work done in Mormon Studies has far-reaching apologetic value, because it engages relevant disciplines outside of Mormonism, applies them to our history and context, and explores and brings out many things of value gone unnoticed, uncontextualized, and misunderstood.

Could you give us a specific example of "far-reaching apologetic value" derived from the work being done in Mormon Studies?

And, how does it compare with the apologetic value derived from academic apologia (like with the old FARMS/MI)?

Furthermore, is there a reason that, in terms of MI, both Mormon Studies and academic apologia couldn't have been pursued together, rather than the latter being essentially sacrificed for the former?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2013 by wenglund

[CASteinman]

It's a new world than it was in the old days of FARMS.

Seems to be true in so many ways.

Is it your contention that the key change in this regard is that scholars at other universities are paying attention to Mormons now and before they weren't? Or what are the critical changes, as you see them?

[MormonMason]

Wow! Massive amounts of comment deletions and censorship going on over there. It's just like John Dehlin's Mormon Stories in that way. One wonders in what other ways it will be alike. Dare we think that way about the new-new MI?

[jwhitlock]

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.

One wonders if BYU administration supported the unprofessional and demeaning way the previous board was dismissed. The administrative and leadership capabilities of those in charge at the MI are questionable, at best; the issue of a mole leaking confidential information from the MI, which was ignored by those in charge, has never really been resolved. The Peter Principle seems to have been effectively displayed in events of the past year, and there hasn't been any real evidence yet that anything in that area has changed.

The MI's non-responses to the significant baggage that remains remind me of the intelligence-insulting corporate marketing pap that passes for spin control when something goes wrong. After a few decades, you can quickly recognize obfuscation when you see it.

[William Schryver]

I'm going out on a limb as I also go on the record with the following prediction:

A year will not pass before the Bradford Junta and the ambitious interlopers it has dredged up in its wake will have been dislodged from within the walls of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

In the immortal words of Jeffrey Lebowski: "This will not stand."

slibwslibd

[Robert F. Smith]

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
  

Careful, Rasputin!

These are good people, some the best in their field, and I know several of them. Sarah Barringer Gordon is not even LDS, but always so fair-minded.

I think that Bill's objection to all this is that it sidelines ancient history, as though that were something to be ashamed of. And he doesn't understand why FARMS had to be destroyed in order to do more modern historical research -- for which there are already plenty of venues for research and publication. Neal A. Maxwell understood that difference and treasured the work of FARMS, as did Gordon B. Hinckley. Little did they realize that being married to BYU brought the kiss of death. Some of us recognized the danger even before the "Borg" assimilated FARMS, but our objections were ignored. I hoped that I wasn't right, and (even though I live in "happy valley") I am not happy at all that I was right.

[ERayR]

One wonders if BYU administration supported the unprofessional and demeaning way the previous board was dismissed. The administrative and leadership capabilities of those in charge at the MI are questionable, at best; the issue of a mole leaking confidential information from the MI, which was ignored by those in charge, has never really been resolved. The Peter Principle seems to have been effectively displayed in events of the past year, and there hasn't been any real evidence yet that anything in that area has changed.

The MI's non-responses to the significant baggage that remains remind me of the intelligence-insulting corporate marketing pap that passes for spin control when something goes wrong. After a few decades, you can quickly recognize obfuscation when you see it.

Nobody wants you to peek behind the curtain.

[CASteinman]

I'm going out on a limb as I also go on the record with the following prediction:

A year will not pass before the Bradford Junta and the ambitious interlopers it has dredged up in its wake will have been dislodged from within the walls of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship.

In the immortal words of Jeffrey Lebowski: "This will not stand."

slibwslibd

I doubt this will come to pass. It will be a "success" by definition. Note that all they have to do is produce one journal in a year (I think?).

HYRWYAMSYCRI?

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Little did they realize that being married to BYU brought the kiss of death. Some of us recognized the danger even before the "Borg" assimilated FARMS, but our objections were ignored. I hoped that I wasn't right, and (even though I live in "happy valley") I am not happy at all that I was right.

I also did not believe this was a good idea. I remember when it occurred -- I thought "Uh Oh". It turned out, for a while to actually be pretty good. But when things finally got churned, it was pretty much as I had originally envisioned it would go. But I admit, I expected it many years ago.

[Robert F. Smith]

When FARMS was created, it filled needs from a massive void, in many different fields, that no one else was tackling in any legitimate way.

Now, the field of Mormon Studies has come up from many individuals who were raised on FARMS. The academic side of exploring and illuminating our history has been taken up by many voices, and become a respected academic field. The very act of making it academic has done MASSIVE good. As has been said, much of the work done in Mormon Studies has far-reaching apologetic value, because it engages relevant disciplines outside of Mormonism, applies them to our history and context, and explores and brings out many things of value gone unnoticed, uncontextualized, and misunderstood.

Perhaps you are too young to realize that you have it backward. Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman were writing important history long before the rise of Dialogue, the Mormon History Association and JMH, Sunstone, etc., and those organizations (some of which had regular symposia and focused on modern history) preceded the formation of FARMS in 1979. All those organizations were and are useful in bringing to flower a wide array of stimulating Mormon research and writing. BYU Studies and the BYU Religious Studies Center, the Utah Historical Society, etc., have always been excellent peer-reviewed venues for the presentation of the modern history of Mormonism in all its grandeur and pathos. And, yes, just like the Joseph Smith Papers Project, it does have "apologetic" value. But, more than that, it has stimulating intellectual value. There is nothing to be ashamed of there.

What should embarrass us all is the palpable fear in some quarters that ancient research might somehow do us damage. One can contrast nearly any serious, large university in which ancient research is bravely carried on in an efficient and effective manner. One would never see the Claremont Graduate University closing down it Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, or just across the highway (Foothill Blvd) closing down the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center for Preservation and Research at the School of Theology, or UCLA closing down its very active Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, or the Hebrew University in Jerusalem closing its Institute of Archaeology.

Many strongly polemic and criticial arguments become moot, or are actually full on addressed and grappled with. Re-formulating the portion of FARMS that dealt with this overlap and bringing it into communication with this powerful and enlightening movement which actually is having current and relevant effect in and outside the Church (Massively in depth and positive Mormon histories and biographies published by Oxford University Press?!) is to be encouraged.

There are other aspects of the old FARMS which do not have equivalent fields to orient themselves with. I really do see a benefit of noting the separate fields and purposes, and adjusting and re-aligning accordingly to the present need.

It's a new world than it was in the old days of FARMS. This realignment is acknowledgement of it. And I think it's okay to recognize the important strides made and voids filled in the past that have led to a new generation that learned from it, and then went further.

I believe we will see that all the different efforts going on will still see to the present needs, but distributed and presented in ways more appropriate to the needs, fields, and options available in today's world.

Clearly, others don't think this is the case. We'll each have to wait and see.

I don't understand this gobbledegook, but I am sure that you mean well. "Wait and see" is not really an option.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[CASteinman]

I am not a scholar and I am not an academician, but I have been engaged in strategic planning for small and large organizations for over 20 years. This seems to me to have something of a vague strategic direction with (thus far) very poor implementation. My experience tells me that bad strategy is very damaging but survivable with excellent implementation anyway. However even the best strategies have a hard time if implementation is not good.

It appears to me that people are expecting the Management Incompetence associated with the firings and the re-imagining of Maxwell Institute to continue into ongoing operations.

That may actually happen, but probably not quite as openly and to the degree previously observed. In my opinion this is something that will not be seen as failure as readily as people think it should be. In fact, I would say this is going to be considered "acceptable" for a while. I do not think that the individuals associated with the new vision are exactly going to be held accountable for the slow pace of achieving their vision (which slow pace seems to be confirmed both in the amount of time things have taken so far and in the goals established).

This suggests to me that years could go by.

Having said that, Incompetence has a way of being revealed inconveniently.

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[MormonMason]

Nobody wants you to peek behind the curtain.

I think the mole was a deliberate plant and that certain fellows wanted it that way. Otherwise, there would have been some sort of disciplinary proceedings and the "victim" of the proceedings would have outed the details. Sometimes, knowingly allowing such to occur is the best way to get what one wants in a manner that eliminates the direct connection, as well as gaining the upper hand in allowing the expelling of those who would be thorns in one's side when one wants to go in "another direction" with the support of the executives in charge. This sort of the thing is akin to the sort of things that you can read in Z's Black Book of Executive Politics. And, yes, I have read it.

[CASteinman]

I would like to be recognized as hoping that the Maxwell Institute is "successful" under this new approach. I don't really know what they have in mind for "success" and I do not see a path toward success in the way that I think of success. But still I hope for it. I want the Institutions associated with the Church to be the best. I want this to work out.

But its hard to see exactly how it works (as I have noted in a previous couple of posts).

[diahman]

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.

But this does mean that the MI is still committed to exploring (and perhaps defending) the BoM as an ancient text; and there's no reason why they couldn't expand those publications to pursue more things in the ancient world.

Furthermore, is there a reason that, in terms of MI, both Mormon Studies and academic apologia couldn't have been pursued together, rather than the latter being essentially sacrificed for the former?

I don't see any reason why the two couldn't be pursued together. 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.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Update (actually a Q&A I filled out a few weeks back):

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/approachingjustice/2013/03/25/maxwellblair/

[William Schryver]

I doubt this will come to pass. It will be a "success" by definition. Note that all they have to do is produce one journal in a year (I think?).

HYRWYAMSYCRI?

Yeah, but I'm a real sap for dramatic turnarounds, so I just can't help myself. Ever After is one of my favorite movies.

[CASteinman]

Ever After is one of my favorite movies.

Oh you really are a sap. You need to give up your man card. I would like you to give it to me, cause mine was taken for liking this movie also.

[Daniel Peterson]

Careful, Rasputin!

These are good people, some the best in their field, and I know several of them. Sarah Barringer Gordon is not even LDS, but always so fair-minded.

I think that Bill's objection to all this is that it sidelines ancient history, as though that were something to be ashamed of. And he doesn't understand why FARMS had to be destroyed in order to do more modern historical research -- for which there are already plenty of venues for research and publication. Neal A. Maxwell understood that difference and treasured the work of FARMS, as did Gordon B. Hinckley. Little did they realize that being married to BYU brought the kiss of death. Some of us recognized the danger even before the "Borg" assimilated FARMS, but our objections were ignored. I hoped that I wasn't right, and (even though I live in "happy valley") I am not happy at all that I was right.

Nor am I.

[CASteinman]

In trying to sort out and make sense of the "change" at MI, it occurred to me that the "change" may go deeper than philosophic differences, and might have more to do with a shift, unintentional or otherwise, from a quasi business model to an academic model. Let me explain.

....

Even more so, given that MI's new customer base may, in a way, inadvertently factor into increasing the very demand for which MI was created to begin with, it is understandable that the founders and active participants and former customers would be concerned that the organization may somewhat become the very thing it was initially designed to oppose. There is legitimate concern that the anecdote may become part of the disease.

I hope this helps.

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.

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?

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).

Edited March 27, 2013 by CASteinman

[MormonMason]

Nor am I.

Nor am I.