Is Nami Divesting Itself Of Skousen's Critical Text Project?

[Calm]

Cal: In what universe would the Maxwell Institute ever want to let the Critical Text Project part ways (assuming there aren't the grave ideological differences that Peterson and Hamblin have warned about ---- and which NAMI continues to deny)? The FARMS logo is emblazoned on the spine of my three volumes of parts 1 and 2.

 

Let's be honest here. Bradford, et. al. are glad not to have the last parts of the CTP published by NAMI under their watch. 

 

And why do you suppose that Skousen wants nothing more to do with NAMI?

There could be differences in what each wants for the texts...with Skousen looking at it from an author's POV and NAMI from a publisher.

[rongo]

Differences such as what?

 

I'm sure there are huge differences --- such that NAMI doesn't want the CTP, and Skousen doesn't want to be associated with them.

[Robert F. Smith]

No, tonie. I'm a solid friend and defender of the Church. I am quite old-fashioned, though, and not a fan at all of the current direction of the Maxwell Institute.

What, pray tell, is that nefarious direction they are going?  Are they doing something newfangled?

[Robert F. Smith]

What would be the rumor? That Maxwell Institute is divesting itself of the project or that Professor Skousen has approached the Interpreter Foundation regarding its need for a new home and for financial assistance?

 

On the latter, it seems to me that Dan Peterson would be in a better position to know that than anyone else.

 

Again, I'm not sure of a linkage between the two, but if not, why would Skousen be approaching the Interpreter Foundation?

 

I invite you to go to the link to Peterson's blog and tell me what you make of it.

I see what you mean, Scott.

My own surmise is that it is enormously expensive to produce each volume (typsetting, proofreading, printing, etc.) and that NAMIRS just doesn't have the cash on hand.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................  

My read on NAMI is that the current orientation doesn't want to have anything to do with anything smacking of apologetics or defense. Or the Book of Mormon, really (and certainly not the Book of Abraham). It seems more interested in Bokovoy-esque studies.

Bokovoy-esque.  What does not even mean, rongo?  Is that like burlesque?  

[tonie]

Cal: In what universe would the Maxwell Institute ever want to let the Critical Text Project part ways (assuming there aren't the grave ideological differences that Peterson and Hamblin have warned about ---- and which NAMI continues to deny)? The FARMS logo is emblazoned on the spine of my three volumes of parts 1 and 2.

 

Let's be honest here. Bradford, et. al. are glad not to have the last parts of the CTP published by NAMI under their watch. 

 

 

And you know Bradford, et. al are glad and you still created this thread? Are you bearing false witness against Bradford, et. al?

 

Is honesty really what you are seeking here? You created a myth from a complete misreading of a blog post.  Lets be honest here, are you really interested in the turht, especially if the truth is as mundane as Calmoriah presents it?

 

Your eagerness to point the finger of scorn at Bradford, Bokovoy, and Maxwell Institute have blinded you reasonable explanations which Calmoriah has offered.  Having been given a reasonable explanation you dig deeper, waging finger even moreso to put Maxwell Institute, Bradford and others in a bad light.

 

Step back a moment, let go of some of the blinding emotion you have toward Bradford and the Maxwell Institute, and attempt to consider that differences can occur without some nefarious conspiracy.  

 

While you might be a defender of the Church;  however, your tactics towards Bradford and Maxwell Institute are the same tactics utilized by critics of the Church. Harp, weep, wail and moan, on any supposed misstep. Create a myth to explain why something must have happened.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see what you mean, Scott.

My own surmise is that it is enormously expensive to produce each volume (typsetting, proofreading, printing, etc.) and that NAMIRS just doesn't have the cash on hand.

Thats a very good possibility.

[Calm]

"In October 2014, at his initiative and with his kind cooperation, Interpreter made the six massive books of Volume 4 of Royal Skousen’s magisterial Book of Mormon Critical Text Project easily accessible online, at no charge. (See http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/books/volume-4-of-the-critical-text-of-the-book-of-mormon-analysis-of-textual-variants-of-the-book-of-mormon/ .) Crucially, too, we did it in a way that respects his copyright and intellectual property rights to the greatest extent possible. This represented an unparalleled opportunity for us; his project, perhaps the most impressive and sustained single scholarly effort of an individual Latter-day Saint since the original publication of the Book of Mormon, represents nearly thirty years of devoted, faithful, painstaking, and meticulous work....

Moreover, owing to unwelcome external circumstances, Professor Skousen’s landmark Critical Text Project suddenly needs to find a new home and (certainly by our standards) substantial funding.  He has just approached The Interpreter Foundation for help.  The amount required—approximately $40,000 for a year—dwarfs anything we’ve heretofore done.  But this is an opportunity for Interpreter to participate in an undertaking that will benefit the Saints and the Church for generations to come.  If you would like to help with this effort, donations will need to be sent to The Interpreter Foundation by check, annotated to indicate that they are earmarked for the Critical Text Project, Volume 3.  Anybody who might be interested in speaking with Professor Skousen and/or with me about the current situation and the needs of the project should contact us via dspegypt@gmail.com....

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-letter-from-daniel-c-peterson/

Edited December 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Based on Dan's FB comments it appears Professor Skousen wants nothing more to do with the Maxwell Institute.

Sethpayne, I'm Facebook friends with Dan, and I've checked his Facebook page but as yet have been unable to locate where he said this. Do you have a link?

[rongo]

What, pray tell, is that nefarious direction they are going?  Are they doing something newfangled?

They are publicly and purposely distancing themselves from the "old FARMS" -style approaches. I don't like it at all, myself, and I think it's clear that membership/subscribership has dropped off sharply. Production has also dropped off sharply.

 

Bokovoy-esque.  What does not even mean, rongo?  Is that like burlesque?

It's my way of referring to biblical studies approaches that are more palatable to secular academia. 

[rongo]

And you know Bradford, et. al are glad and you still created this thread?

 

That's my opinion, yes.

 

 

 

Are you bearing false witness against Bradford, et. al?

 

I would need to know for myself that what I am saying is false, but choose to say it anyway due to various motives, for it to be false witness. From my vantage point, my criticisms of the current NAMI are true and valid. 

 

 

 

You created a myth from a complete misreading of a blog post.  Lets be honest here, are you really interested in the turht, especially if the truth is as mundane as Calmoriah presents it?

 

My OP asked a question, and I appreciate any insights and observations people can offer. I read the post on patheos, and figured some here could add to that discussion. Whether or not I have "created a myth" depends on what the details actually end up being (inasmuch as it can be determined). I, for one, still don't know what, exactly, has happened between NAMI, Skousen, and the Interpreter. Do you?

 

 

 

Your eagerness to point the finger of scorn at Bradford, Bokovoy, and Maxwell Institute have blinded you reasonable explanations which Calmoriah has offered.  Having been given a reasonable explanation you dig deeper, waging finger even moreso to put Maxwell Institute, Bradford and others in a bad light.

 

Cal's explanation is reasonable. Maybe even probable. But aren't *your* own assumptions and agendas perhaps blinding *you* to things that could be true, but that you're dismissing out of hand because you (apparently) think that things are this way, or that way? When they may, in fact, be otherwise?

 

 

 

Step back a moment, let go of some of the blinding emotion you have toward Bradford and the Maxwell Institute, and attempt to consider that differences can occur without some nefarious conspiracy.

 

I agree. This may be as simple as NAMI not wanting to fund it because of financial considerations. But doesn't that also tell us something? At minimum, that the importance of completing the CTP does not rank highly on NAMI's current opportunity cost calculation? When I ask why that is, then the "new NAMI is better" crowd get all up in arms.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2014 by rongo

[rongo]

Rongo, I'm not even sure what NAMI means.  So far I've read that it has something to do with mental illness.  National Alliance for Mental Illness. 

Ironically, I just received an email informing me that I have a mandatory two-hour training with NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Illness) in late January. Previously, I had never heard of that NAMI, either . . .

[tonie]

 

 

That's my opinion, yes.

 

Now it is just your own opinion. Yet you prefaced your supposed opinion, with the assertion that those who disagree with your maligning agenda are not being honest.

 

My OP asked a question, and I appreciate any insights and observations people can offer. I read the post on patheos, and figured some here could add to that discussion.

 

Wouldn’t it seem more reasonable, to ask the source - i.e. Daniel Peterson – then when you received clarification, possibly come here and discuss the matter. Your OP is a calculated sounding board and soap box from which you intend to malign fellow Saints.

 

Whether or not I have "created a myth" depends on what the details actually end up being (inasmuch as it can be determined). I, for one, still don't know what, exactly, has happened between NAMI, Skousen, and the Interpreter. Do you?

 

I know as much about the situation as you. I also did not start a discussion based on lack of understanding. I also did not start a discussion about for the purposes of waging my finger at them or maligning the character of fellow Saints.

 

But aren't *your* own assumptions and agendas perhaps blinding *you* to things that could be true, but that you're dismissing out of hand because you (apparently) think that things are this way, or that way? When they may, in fact, be otherwise?

 

What are my assumptions? My assumptions, and they are supported by your conduct, are that you simply wanted to create a discussion to cast stones at Bradford, et. al.  My assumptions are that you are not very interested in the truth as to why Skousen approached Peterson and company.  This assumption is supported by the fact that your retorts to reasonable explanations, cast fellow Saints in a negative light.

 

This may be as simple as NAMI not wanting to fund it because of financial considerations. But doesn't that also tell us something? At minimum, that the importance of completing the CTP does not rank highly on NAMI's current opportunity cost calculation? When I ask why that is, then the "new NAMI is better" crowd get all up in arms.

 

Curious, who in this discussion has promoted “new NAMI is better”? Once again, I believe this demonstrates your blinding hostility towards Bradford, et. al.

I have not read anyone promoting “new NAMI is better”.  What I have read, is Scott Lloyd correcting your assumptions, and his pointing out simply facts which you seemed to have ignored. I have read is Calmoriah, offering reasonable mundane business explanations for the situation. I read Robert Smith questioning your character attacks on an individual who must be associated with the “new NAMI”. As for myself, I have questioned your motives and suggested that you try an approach the situation without all the pent up hostility you have toward Bradford, et. al.

 

 

And you know Rongo, it is really getting old, very old, that Bishops or former Bishops (like yourself) will use message faith promoting message boards to attack fellow Saints. 

[sethpayne]

Sethpayne, I'm Facebook friends with Dan, and I've checked his Facebook page but as yet have been unable to locate where he said this. Do you have a link?

 

Let me see if I can find it, Scott.  I only saw it briefly.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if DCP deleted it as he mentioned in the same comment that he didn't want to say anything further about it.

[sethpayne]

Let me see if I can find it, Scott.  I only saw it briefly.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if DCP deleted it as he mentioned in the same comment that he didn't want to say anything further about it.

 

 

Scott -- I just tagged you in FB on the thread in question.  

 

https://db.tt/Y5pEAFG1

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott -- I just tagged you in FB on the thread in question.  

 

https://db.tt/Y5pEAFG1

Much obliged, sethpayne.

 

Apparently, there's more to it than just monetary or logistical considerations.

[sethpayne]

Much obliged, sethpayne.

 

Apparently, there's more to it than just monetary or logistical considerations.

 

That was the impression I was left with as well.

[rongo]

Now it is just your own opinion. Yet you prefaced your supposed opinion, with the assertion that those who disagree with your maligning agenda are not being honest.

 

Oh, come on, tonie. "Let's be honest, cal" is an expression. I don't think anyone (besides you) took that to mean that I was calling calmoriah's honesty into question. I'm confident that calmoriah herself didn't take it this way. 

 

 

Wouldn’t it seem more reasonable, to ask the source - i.e. Daniel Peterson – then when you received clarification, possibly come here and discuss the matter.

 

I'm not in Dr. Peterson's contact list, and I don't think it likely that he would have given me additional details besides what he posted. Hence my thread to see what others think/know/etc.

 

Your OP is a calculated sounding board and soap box from which you intend to malign fellow Saints.

 

Here's my OP, again: "I've heard this. Can anyone confirm or deny? If true, this would serve to further confirm my read on the orientation of the current iteration of NAMI. Thanks!"

 

While it's true that I approach this discussion with certain biases and prejudices (just like everyone else), I really was looking for more information from the collective group here. Really. 

 

I know as much about the situation as you. I also did not start a discussion based on lack of understanding. I also did not start a discussion about for the purposes of waging my finger at them or maligning the character of fellow Saints.

 

Has the extent to which I do or do not have "lack of understanding" on this been demonstrated? There have been lots of different views expressed on this thread --- none definitive. Including some that agree (based on Facebook or other sources) that there is more at play here than simple business disagreements about publishing costs.

 

 

What are my assumptions? My assumptions, and they are supported by your conduct, are that you simply wanted to create a discussion to cast stones at Bradford, et. al.

 

What are your views on how the new NAMI compares to NAMI under Peterson? JBMS? FARMS Review compared with Mormon Studies Review? How Peterson's firing and the new orientation of NAMI launch was handled? Etc.

 

 

My assumptions are that you are not very interested in the truth as to why Skousen approached Peterson and company.

 

You could not be more wrong about this. I am very interested in the truth (i.e., what really happened and is happening) about why Skousen approached Interpreter and is looking to finish the CTP not under the auspices of BYU/NAMI. I am admittedly not as much in the know as some here, and am genuinely interested

 

This assumption is supported by the fact that your retorts to reasonable explanations, cast fellow Saints in a negative light.

 

Is it possible to express disagreement, frustration, disappointment, etc. with NAMI under Bradford in a way that does not "cast fellow Saints in a negative light," in your view? 

 

Can you provide examples of me answering Scott and calmoriah's reasonable explanations with "retorts?" Could I have carried on the discussion from my point-of-view in a way that wouldn't be seen by you as a "retort?"

 

Curious, who in this discussion has promoted “new NAMI is better”? Once again, I believe this demonstrates your blinding hostility towards Bradford, et. al.

 

Nobody that I know of, except maybe you (depending on whether you think new NAMI is better than old NAMI). Maybe Robert F. Smith. but he hasn't really said much. My impression from past discussions is that Robert views new NAMI more favorably than I do.

 

What I have read, is Scott Lloyd correcting your assumptions, and his pointing out simply facts which you seemed to have ignored.

 

I replied, "That's a good point, Scott. The onus might be on Skousen, and not on the part of NAMI." Just who is ignoring what?

 

I have read is Calmoriah, offering reasonable mundane business explanations for the situation.

 

I have, too.

 

I read Robert Smith questioning your character attacks on an individual who must be associated with the “new NAMI”.

 

I don't know that he would characterize it that way. He did ask for clarification on what he called their "nefarious direction" or whether I don't like what they're doing as being "newfangled."

 

 

And you know Rongo, it is really getting old, very old, that Bishops or former Bishops (like yourself) will use message faith promoting message boards to attack fellow Saints.

 

Why bring past callings up? I haven't.

 

I ask again: Can people legitimately criticize new NAMI in such a way that you *won't* call it an "attack?"

[ERayR]

That, is ironic. It seems to me most all of your posts are critical. My memory could be failing me though.

 

For an old guy your mind is pretty sharp.

[Kenngo1969]

Ironically, I just received an email informing me that I have a mandatory two-hour training with NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Illness) in late January. Previously, I had never heard of that NAMI, either . . .

Now you have!  Congratulations!  While I have never been involved with NAMI's (in this case, the "MI" being short for "Mental Illness") clergy training, I have been involved with NAMI in other ways, and I know it to be a worthwhile organization.  See, e.g., here:

 

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=FaithNet_Newsletter&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=44821 

 

Although I have yet to read this myself, it does come extraordinarily highly recommended.  I believe it, too, is certainly worth a look:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Valley-Sorrow-Laymans-Understanding-Latter-Day/dp/1590380878

 

Uhhh, sorry for derailing the thread!  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic, NAMI(RS)/Maxwell Institute programming.

[Damien the Leper]

For an old guy your mind is pretty sharp.

What do you know? You can barely hear. Love ya, ERayR. ;-)

[tonie]

Wouldn’t it seem more reasonable, to ask the source - i.e. Daniel Peterson – then when you received clarification, possibly come here and discuss the matter.

 

 

I'm not in Dr. Peterson's contact list, and I don't think it likely that he would have given me additional details besides what he posted. Hence my thread to see what others think/know/etc.

 

 

 You found Dr. Peterson's blog, yet you want to claim that there is no way for you contact him. 

 

Wouldn't it have been easier and more direct, to ask Dr. Peterson directly on his blog? His blog uses "Disquss" which is a comment feature.  Dr. Peterson regularly uses his blog comment section to discuss with others.  So given the ease at which you could have asked him, why didn't you use his blog? Why make a spectacle of your dislike of NAMI here?

 

Edited December 7, 2014 by tonie

[rongo]

I didn't say there was no way to contact him. I said that I didn't think that he would give me any details. 

 

Which he subsequently said ---- he stated that he didn't want to say anything further about it. 

 

As far as discussion boards go, are you saying that expressing disapproval or disappointment in the Maxwell Institute isn't a valid topic for conversation? Ever?

 

If you don't mind, I would like to hear your answers to the questions I asked you about your specific views on the old Maxwell Institute compared to the new one. I'm curious how you describe this yourself.

 

Thanks!

[ERayR]

What do you know? You can barely hear. Love ya, ERayR. ;-)

 

You've been talking to my kids haven't you?

[tonie]

I didn't say there was no way to contact him. I said that I didn't think that he would give me any details. 

 

Which he subsequently said ---- he stated that he didn't want to say anything further about it. 

 

Which he apparently stated in a facebook post, and from what I can tell, the knowledge of the FB post was brought to out attention by sethpayne.

 

 

If you don't mind, I would like to hear your answers to the questions I asked you about your specific views on the old Maxwell Institute compared to the new one. I'm curious how you describe this yourself.

 

Thanks!

 

I don't care about Maxwell Institute; I have no interest in it at all and never had an interest in it.

 

Despite my lack of interest, it is getting very mold covering old for members of the Church use faith promoting message board/blogs to personally attack and likely defame fellow members of the Church.

 

Here is a likely defamatory gem, from Gregory L Smith, M.D. (who has been published in Interpreter, FARMS Review, and material hosted on FAIRmormon):

 

"It is also worth remembering that Jerry Bradford has home taught Cecil Samuelson for years. So, I think it not beyond the realm of possibility that a good deal of well-poisoning has gone on under the guise of Christian brotherhood."  Friday, March 14, 2014

 

 

Gregory L Smith, in a very despicable, shameful and embarrassing manner, accuses Bradford of abusing his Priesthood duty (Hometeach) for personal gain. 

 

The Maxwell Institute underwent a change 2 YEARS AGO. The Leadership of BYU did not undo the change.  The Authorities of the Church did not undo the change.  It is time to get over and stop all the back-biting, bickering and gossip about fellow members.

Edited December 8, 2014 by tonie