Today Is The Second Birthday Of Interpreter Foundation

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps it has already become quite clear by now, but I am a regular follower of Daniel Peterson's blog. Hence, I was pleased to note today that he is announcing an important anniversary, the second birthday of the Interpreter Foundation and its associated online journal, Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture.

 

In 2012, when Dan and colleagues were deposed from the editorship and staff of the Mormon Studies Review, some of us expressed the wistful hope that the Farms Review/Mormon Studies Review as originally founded and carried forward would be continued in some vein. It was not long before our hopes were gratified. At the FAIR Conference in August of that year, Dan announced the launch of Interpreter, just a few days after it was conceived.

 

As Dan makes clear in his blog post, the journal has achieved a great deal since then, including the publication of a new article each week without fail. In addition to that, there have been nearly "a hundred scripture roundtables, the launch of a blog, a conference on science and Mormonism, our first book . . . and there’s a whole lot more on its way."

 

I said soon after the launch -- and I believe it today more than ever -- that Interpreter is even better and certainly more technologically nimble than the old FARMS Review/Mormon Studies Review. Moreover, it has maintained consistency in its quality, and such consistency is perhaps the most difficult feat for any organization or enterprise.

 

Of course all of this has been accomplished largely with the help of generous and able volunteers. There have been some monetary donations. I'm pleased to count myself among the donors, though my support has been modest; I wish I could do more. I encourage others to contribute to the extent that they can. On the Interpreter home page, you'll find a "Donations" link.

 

So, kudos to my friend Daniel Peterson and his team on this anniversary day, and many happy returns.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

No good thing comes out of selling out to higher education policy wonks . . .

 

It seemed like such a good idea at the time, I'm sure, but FARMS was doomed before the ink was dry.

 

Thank heavens the brains behind FARMS reopened under old management and a new name!

 

Es leben die Koenige!

[sethpayne]

No good thing comes out of selling out to higher education policy wonks . . .

 

It seemed like such a good idea at the time, I'm sure, but FARMS was doomed before the ink was dry.

 

Thank heavens the brains behind FARMS reopened under old management and a new name!

 

Es leben die Koenige!

 

Why are you denigrating President Gordon B. Hinckley?  He was the one who wanted to bring FARMS into BYU.

[awyatt]

Why are you denigrating President Gordon B. Hinckley?  He was the one who wanted to bring FARMS into BYU.

No denegration; we all know that prophets can make mistakes.

-Allen

[Scott Lloyd]

Why are you denigrating President Gordon B. Hinckley?  He was the one who wanted to bring FARMS into BYU.

If that's true, I assume he had a pretty good understanding of what FARMS was -- and liked what he saw -- at the time he wanted to bring it into BYU. Which is a pretty good argument as to why its character should not have been radically altered later.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

If that's true, I assume he had a pretty good understanding of what FARMS was -- and liked what he saw -- at the time he wanted to bring it into BYU. Which is a pretty argument as to why its character should not have been radically altered later.

 

Good point, Scott.  I have no doubt President Hinckley was a FARMS fan, so to speak.  And, as I mentioned in my Sunstone presentation on Saturday during the Q&A session, Dan, Bill, and all of the FARMS contributors deserve a big thank you for tackling the non-stop attacks coming from counter-cult ministries, and even mainline Christians.    I can recall at least 3 times as a missionary, while being accosted by some zealous folks, where I was able to provide an answer based off of FARMS work.

 

IMO, we face different challenges today, although the Christian critics still exist.  The biggest challenge, IMO, is extreme secularism and the exaltation of scientism.  So I'm glad to see the Interpreter making efforts to tackle those issues which I think, at least, are much more difficult to address because there is often no starting ground of agreement.  At least when you are discussing things with an EV Christian, the Bible is a single point of agreement -- not its interpretation, but rather its place as holy scripture.

[sethpayne]

No denegration; we all know that prophets can make mistakes.

-Allen

 

No way!  

[Scott Lloyd]

Good point, Scott.  I have no doubt President Hinckley was a FARMS fan, so to speak.  And, as I mentioned in my Sunstone presentation on Saturday during the Q&A session, Dan, Bill, and all of the FARMS contributors deserve a big thank you for tackling the non-stop attacks coming from counter-cult ministries, and even mainline Christians.    I can recall at least 3 times as a missionary, while being accosted by some zealous folks, where I was able to provide an answer based off of FARMS work.

 

IMO, we face different challenges today, although the Christian critics still exist.  The biggest challenge, IMO, is extreme secularism and the exaltation of scientism.  So I'm glad to see the Interpreter making efforts to tackle those issues which I think, at least, are much more difficult to address because there is often no starting ground of agreement.  At least when you are discussing things with an EV Christian, the Bible is a single point of agreement -- not its interpretation, but rather its place as holy scripture.

I largely agree with you. The landscape has changed significantly since the days 10 or 15 years ago when I became a close observer of Mormon apologetics. We do indeed face more frequent and stronger attacks today from aggressive secularism, and those have more-or-less overshadowed the attacks from the aggressive religionists, though the latter still exist.

 

In addition to that, I am seeing more frequent attacks from Church members on the fringe who would, if they could, alter the Church to suit their own notions of what it should be. And I know I'm treading into sensitive territory here, because you have spoken eloquently on "pastoral apologetics" and the need for having patience with those who doubt. The thing is, I see a distinction between those, on the one hand, who harbor doubts and even express them on occasion and, on the other hand, those who aggressively pursue a course to transform the Church of Jesus Christ into something it is not and never can be, and who, in the pursuit of their course, try to sow seeds of doubt among the faithful.

 

And to get back to the thread topic, I see the Interpreter Foundation as being of service in providing a bulwark against all of these attacks -- from whatever source or bent -- and I say God bless it and long life to it.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

 

 

In addition to that, I am seeing more frequent attacks from Church members on the fringe who would, if they could, alter the Church to suit their own notions of what it should be. And I know I'm treading into sensitive territory here, because you have spoken eloquently on "pastoral apologetics" and the need for having patience with those who doubt. The thing is, I see a distinction between those, on the one hand, who harbor doubts and even express them on occasion and, on the other hand, those who aggressively pursue a course to transform the Church of Jesus Christ into something it is not and never can be, and who, in the pursuit of their course, try to sow seeds of doubt among the faithful.

 

 

This statement is sad, but true.  There are a lot of attacks coming from more liberal Mormons.  Part of this, though, may be that liberal Mormons (and I include myself in this category) have powerful means of spreading the message.  So any given "movement" may actually only involve a smaller group but savvy online positioning can make an issue much larger than it may actually be.

 

I spoke at Sunstone in 2012 on what I called "New Mormon Liberalism"; a liberalism which is defined by what Mormon liberals stand for, and not simply for what the Church is doing "wrong."  That isn't to say that I think everything in the Church is 100% peachy and there are no areas for improvement but for me -- and I really am only speaking of only myself here -- I'm more concerned about the struggles of ward members, family members, stake members etc... because even if I wanted to agitate and attempt to change a Church policy, I probably wouldn't be very successful.  I firmly believe that those who chose Mormonism must accept that membership implies a social contract.  A contract wherein it is understood that the Brethren lead and that there are certain ways to discuss difficulties etc...  Of course, I think we can improve this whole process but that's another subject altogether.

 

And yes, back to the subject of the thread:  Congrats to Dan and the Interpreter team for 2 years of publication success.  It will be very interesting to see how the Interpreter continues  to grow.

[wenglund]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

In 2012, when Dan and colleagues were deposed from the editorship and staff of the Mormon Studies Review, some of us expressed the wistful hope that the Farms Review/Mormon Studies Review as originally founded and carried forward would be continued in some vein. It was not long before our hopes were gratified. At the FAIR Conference in August of that year, Dan announced the launch of Interpreter, just a few days after it was conceived.

 

I went back just over two years ago and found a thread on this board in which I made this remark to Bill Hamblin:

 

The first question that comes to my mind is this: Do you see a group -- possibly including Dan and you -- forming an independent organization sometime in the future that recaptures the vision of classic FARMS?

 

To which Bob Crockett responded:

 

Not likely. Looking anti-church at this point.

I wish Hamblin and Schriver would just put a cork in it.

 

 

And Peppermint Patty gave this rejoinder:

 

I would tend to agree, Mr. Crockett. It's obvious that feelings have been hurt and that emotions are running high. I just wish that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson would take some time and cool off. It's always better to assess the situation in a calm and collective manner.

In the long run, I hope that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson will support and embrace the new direction BYU and the Maxwell Institute are heading. I tend to think everyone will be proud of the future scholarship and efforts from the Maxwell institue.

 

How grateful I am that some prognostications and recommendations are not fulfilled in every whit.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

I went back just over a year and found a thread on this board in which I made this remark to Bill Hamblin:

 

To which Bob Crockett responded:

 

And Peppermint Patty gave this rejoinder:

 

How grateful I am that some prognostications and recommendations are not fulfilled in every whit

 

Don't you love it when the boo-birds are proven spectacularly wrong by events?

[wenglund]

I went back just over two years ago and found a thread on this board in which I made this remark to Bill Hamblin:

 

To which Bob Crockett responded:

 

And Peppermint Patty gave this rejoinder:

 

How grateful I am that some prognostications and recommendations are not fulfilled in every whit.

 

Speaking of Schriver, does anyone know if Interpreter will be publishing Will's work on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, particularly the material nixed by MI and that later done in conjunction with Royal Skousen? There was hint of it around the time of the founding of Interpreter, but I am still waiting anxiously. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

Don't you love it when the boo-birds are proven spectacularly wrong by events?

I was a Platinum level supporter of MI [Maxwell Institute] before the change and a non-supporter since. I was merely appalled at the character anti - Church attacks on BYU, Bradford and the surviving guard who could not defend themselves. I have always appreciated the MI [Mormon Interpreter] since. I'd send M Interpreter money but I don't like my name appearing on donate lists.  So take your anonymous comments on my character elsewhere, please.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Why are you a nonsupporter of the MI if you think they are doing good things, if you don't mind me asking (since you mentioned it, it seems that it has relevance to your stance).

[Bob Crockett]

I can see how I used MI to describe both Interpreter and Maxwell.  Sorry. I fixed above.  My money doesn't go to Maxwell because they haven't asked me for any.  My money doesn't go to Mormon Interpreter because I don't like my name appearing on public donor lists.  Given my stance on Mesoamerican studies and extra-Biblical theories of the Josian Temple Reform (Margaret Barker and all that) I doubt my contribution would be appreciated.  

Edited August 6, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

I can see how I used MI to describe both Interpreter and Maxwell.  Sorry. I fixed above.  My money doesn't go to Maxwell because they haven't asked me for any.

Perhaps it would help if you took cognizance of the fact that the proper name is not "Mormon Interpreter." It is Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. There need not be any confusion with the initials MI if this fact is borne in mind.

 

I can see how I used MI to describe both Interpreter and Maxwell.  Sorry. I fixed above.  My money doesn't go to Maxwell because they haven't asked me for any.

Did Interpreter ask you for any? Other than in the course of a general appeal to the public, I mean? If I'm not mistaken, the Maxwell Institute does that as well.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

I was a Platinum level supporter of MI [Maxwell Institute] before the change and a non-supporter since. I was merely appalled at the character anti - Church attacks on BYU, Bradford and the surviving guard who could not defend themselves. I have always appreciated the MI [Mormon Interpreter] since. I'd send M Interpreter money but I don't like my name appearing on donate lists.  So take your anonymous comments on my character elsewhere, please.

 

I'm confused:

 

1.  How is referring to you in the post cited as a boo-bird for saying what you did about the Interpreter an attack on your character?

2.  How is it that you were not functioning as boo-bird in said post?  You plainly were.

[Bob Crockett]

Perhaps it would help if you took cognizance of the fact that the proper name is not "Mormon Interpreter." It is Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. There need not be any confusion with the initials MI if this fact is borne in mind.

Did Interpreter ask you for any? Other than in the course of a general appeal to the public, I mean? If I'm not mistaken, the Maxwell Institute does that as well.

I don't really care about how you parse my words. I like the Interpreter. That is about it.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm confused:

1. How is referring to you in the post cited as a boo-bird for saying what you did about the Interpreter an attack on your character?

2. How is it that you were not functioning as boo-bird in said post? You plainly were.

My post was plain enough. No need here to trade insults further.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't really care about how you parse my words. I like the Interpreter. That is about it.

No parsing intended, just asking for clarification. You seemed to imply the Interpreter Foundation made a personal appeal to you for donations. I didn't know the foundation made such specific appeals. Perhaps it does.

[Scott Lloyd]

My post was plain enough. No need here to trade insults further.

Perhaps a definition of boo bird is needed here. This is what I found online:

 

 

boo bird

Web definitions

1. (Boo-birds) Fans who boo their own team when they play badly.
   http://www.reference.com/browse/ticky-tack

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

I did no such thing. I condemned and criticized the anti-Church and anti-BYU sentiments on this board which said:

- Dr. Peterson was a victim of Church correlation. (I consider correlation to be inspired and good management.)

- Dr. Bradford ought to have his temple recommend revoked. (Why Me and others.)

- The decision to change tone was the result of an anti-Mormon conspiracy. (The exact argument of fundamentalists.)

- BYU President got it wrong or didn't know what was going on

- The Board of Trustees were duped

And more like that. I also said that BYU was no place for the old FARMS apologia due to academic restrictions for neutrality, peer review and fair-play, and that the off-university FAIR model was more appropriate. I have been proven right.

The things I condemned and still condemn were Hamblin's and Shriver's personal attacks on the BYU guard and, consequently, the anonymous personal attacks on me for defense of Bradford and BYU. They continue with USU's post.

It wasn't that I disliked old FARMS apologia. As I have said, I was a Platinum supporter. But I can also see how BYU was reasonable.  It is possible to love and support BYU, on the one hand, and admire Peterson-era apologia, on the other hand.  I have said that Dr. Peterson has been the best thing for LDS apologia since Hugh Nibley and Orson F. Whitney before that.  But, on this board, because I didn't despise BYU I have been pilloried by largely the anonymous friends of Peterson and Hamblin.

I root for BYU and not for folks who attack it. So I wasn't booing my own team. I was booing the boorish.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tiki]

No denegration; we all know that prophets can make mistakes.

-Allen

This is the legacy of F.A.R.M.S. When in reality it's F.A.R.M.S. that is full of mistakes.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is the legacy of F.A.R.M.S. When in reality it's F.A.R.M.S. that is full of mistakes.

Drive-by insults are not welcome on this thread.