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

[rongo]

 

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.

Which doesn't answer my question(s). 

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that we put aside and get past what you call "back-biting, bickering, and gossip about fellow members,"

 

1) Can I not, in your view, ever open a discussion about impressions about how the Maxwell Institute is doing now, what it has/n't produced over the last two years, etc.? 

 

2) What about sharing/expressing my views, if they're negative about MI? Is it possible to do that without it being "back-biting, bickering, and gossip about fellow members?" Do you agree that this can also be me expressing my opinion and my feelings --- that this does not on its face constitute "back-biting, bickering, and gossip about fellow members?"

 

3) Where have *I* done any "back-biting, bickering, and gossip about fellow members?" All I'm getting from you is that any expression of negativity towards new NAMI (and nostalgia for old NAMI) is --- what, exactly? A forbidden point-of-view? 

 

This is a discussion board. Where things get discussed.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

I don't think that is what they are doing, rongo.  But, even if they are, I do "biblical studies . . . that are more palatable to secular academia" too.  Does that make me a bad person?

[rongo]

Not at all. 

 

There is a place for it. I just don’t like that becoming the whole direction and emphasis, or at least a greatly-increased emphasis.

 

I'm fascinated, though, by the rhetorical tendencies here. I have said *nothing* about whatever I'm critical of with NAMI having a bearing on the personal character or temple worthiness, etc. of those associated with this new Mormon Studies emphasis. Nothing even close. Yet, even you fall into tonie’s rhetorical hyberbole in asking if your biblical studies “makes you a bad person.” Where have I ever said anything close to that?

 

Anyone can go and look at my posts in this thread, or any other thread where I’ve discussed my views on the Gerald Bradford direction of NAMI. Does what I actually *have* said come anywhere close to meriting this sampling from tonie from this thread:

 

"back-biting," "bickering," "gossiping," “bearing false witness,” “maligning the character of fellow Saints,” “casting stones,” “attacking fellow Saints,” “personally attack,” “likely defame”

 

It’s surreal.  But the ones who are nostalgic for JBMS, FARMS Review, Insights, etc. (Sidney B. Sperry, Janne Sjodahl, Hugh Nibley, Daniel Peterson-esque) –type “Mormon Studies” as opposed to this type of “Mormon Studies” get called all sorts of things simply for having the audacity to express their views out loud?

 

I really think the “blinding hostility” is on the other foot, not mine. I sense in the now-predictable responses frustration that production under “Mormon Studies” is way down, and interest/subscribership as well. Such that when people do express criticisms, this type of lashing out happens. 

[rongo]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

That makes your apoplexy here even harder to understand then.

 

Okay. Are you LDS? If so, are you unhappy with any current Church doctrines, policies, or practices?

 

I'm just trying to figure out what you are . . .

 

[Kenngo1969]

... 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.

Defamatory?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Edited December 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[tonie]

 

That makes your apoplexy here even harder to understand then.

 

Okay. Are you LDS? If so, are you unhappy with any current Church doctrines, policies, or practices?

 

I'm just trying to figure out what you are . . .

 

 

 

What is hard to understand about it being very old and borish to read posts from members on faith promoting discussion boards, that attack other members of the Church.  As for your other questions in the post, I believe in Christ; whether I belong to a organized Church or not isn't important.

[rongo]

What is hard to understand about it being very old and borish to read posts from members on faith promoting discussion boards, that attack other members of the Church.  

 CFR that I have "attacked" anybody. 

 

You appear to me to be defining "disagreeing with" or "expressing an opinion" as "attacking" (and your other litany of over-the-top expressions quoted above).

[Calm]

 

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....

Source so we know context and that it is really from Greg please (not claiming you are lying but anyone can write something, claim someone else wrote it and putting a date on it and nothing else doesn't somehow demonstrate this didn't happen)

[rongo]

This latest (commentary on material in the new JBMS) is interesting, and relevant to the discussion here. The comments are an extention of the discussion here.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/12/shedding-the-plague-of-mormon-exceptionalism.html

[Scott Lloyd]

Source so we know context and that it is really from Greg please (not claiming you are lying but anyone can write something, claim someone else wrote it and putting a date on it and nothing else doesn't somehow demonstrate this didn't happen)

I was able through Google to trace the quote to a post from Scratch on Mormon Discussions. If that is indeed the source (and I acknowledge it would be a secondary source) tonie's post would be ironic indeed, as that board amounts to a veritable cesspool of defamation. Edited December 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This latest (commentary on material in the new JBMS) is interesting, and relevant to the discussion here. The comments are an extention of the discussion here.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/12/shedding-the-plague-of-mormon-exceptionalism.html

Bill Hamblin also has a couple of blog posts discussing Park's review. Here's a link to one:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2014/12/12/youre-a-plague-and-we-are-the-cure/#respond

[tonie]

 

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

 

 

Source so we know context and that it is really from Greg please (not claiming you are lying but anyone can write something, claim someone else wrote it and putting a date on it and nothing else doesn't somehow demonstrate this didn't happen)

 

Daniel Petersons Patheos patheos Sic Et Non blog, March 12, 2014 "Tales from the Far Side of Reality",   commentor using screen name Gregory L. Smith

 

 

And another gem from commentor using screen name Gregory L. Smith, found on Bill Hamblin's patheos Enigmatic Mirror blog, June 2, 2014 "Dehiln Interview's Adam Miller", commentor screen name Gregory L. Smith:

 

"Good work neither sanctifies or excuses dishonesty or unethical behavior, which I have observed in spades from Bradford and some of his underlings."

 

Based on the circumstance I hardly think commentor screen name Gregory L. Smith is saying that he has observed "Bradford and some of his underlings" providing "good work" "inspades."

Edited December 13, 2014 by tonie

[Calm]

Likely that he is accusing of unethical behaviour. I would myself qualify the way Greg learned he was dismissed as unethical. However reading in context the first quote tonie provided, there seems to me no necessary accusation of misuse of priesthood. He was establishing they knew each other in the context of the social aspect of church as well as through the administration and because of that relationship, were thus probably good friends who had plenty of time and occasions (they must live quite close to each other if in the same ward…add-on:  apparently across the street from each other) where they could discuss things pertaining to administration where Dr. Bradford had a chance to push his own agenda and perceptions without being challenged by others who differed in their perspective.

I dont think the comment was necessary, but I don't think it implied what tonie inferred from it. I am not in any way saying he didn't make the accusation of well poisoning.

Edited December 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

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

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

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

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.

I am willing to believe that you are uninterested in MI and that you never had any interest in it.  Makes sense, since everything you say on the subject indicates that you don't know anything about it at all.

 

What I can't understand, tonie, is why then you feel obliged to make vicious and uninformed comments about fellow Mormons.  Please address yourself to issues about which you at least have some knowledge.  You need to quit back-biting and gossiping about fellow members, or anyone else for that matter.

[tonie]

nevermind.

Edited December 14, 2014 by tonie

[tonie]

I am willing to believe that you are uninterested in MI and that you never had any interest in it.  Makes sense, since everything you say on the subject indicates that you don't know anything about it at all.

 

What I can't understand, tonie, is why then you feel obliged to make vicious and uninformed comments about fellow Mormons.  Please address yourself to issues about which you at least have some knowledge.  You need to quit back-biting and gossiping about fellow members, or anyone else for that matter.

 

 

Robert, I am sorry that Dr. Daniel Peterson - who in 1997 was FARMS Chairman,  hurt your feelings when he told Peggy Fletcher-Stack, he was "catiously optimistic" about FARMS joining BYU and that "FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommadated". -  Daniel Peters to Peggy Fletcher Stack, 1997, Salt Lake Tribune "Group Trying to Prove LDS Works Joins With BYU, But Can Controversial Questions Continue?"

 

I am not sure why you must attack and villify me for what Daniel Peterson said in 1997.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I am sorry that Dr. Daniel Peterson - who in 1997 was FARMS Chairman,  hurt your feelings when he told Peggy Fletcher-Stack, he was "catiously optimistic" about FARMS joining BYU and that "FARMS has often had a polemical edge and we are curious to see how or whether that will be accommadated". -  Daniel Peters to Peggy Fletcher Stack, 1997, Salt Lake Tribune "Group Trying to Prove LDS Works Joins With BYU, But Can Controversial Questions Continue?"

 

I am not sure why you must attack and villify me for what Daniel Peterson said in 1997.

I'm not sure why you insist on bearing false witness about feelings (perhaps your own feelings?) which you attribute to me.  But it is clear that you enjoy vicious polemics directed toward me or others you don't like, and don't feel at all contrite or repentant about it.

[tonie]

I'm not sure why you insist on bearing false witness about feelings (perhaps your own feelings?) which you attribute to me.  But it is clear that you enjoy vicious polemics directed toward me or others you don't like, and don't feel at all contrite or repentant about it.

 

I am not sure why you persist to attack me for what Daniel Peterson said in 1997, and please do remember when he commented that "FARMS has often had polemical edge..." he was speaking as the Chairman of FARMS.  You should focus your disagreemen to Daniel Peterson.

 

You are derailing the thread into personal arguments. Thread ban.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not sure why you persist to attack me for what Daniel Peterson said in 1997, and please do remember when he commented that "FARMS has often had polemical edge..." he was speaking as the Chairman of FARMS.  You should focus your disagreemen to Daniel Peterson.

Is that what we are taught by Jesus, tonie?  To constantly bear false witness against brothers in the Gospel, as you are doing to me?  Have you no shame at all?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure why you persist to attack me for what Daniel Peterson said in 1997, and please do remember when he commented that "FARMS has often had polemical edge..." he was speaking as the Chairman of FARMS.  You should focus your disagreemen to Daniel Peterson.

As I pointed out when this quote was brought up before, engaging in polemics is not necessarily dishonorable. It depends on what the polemical argument is directed against.

 

Polemics is a branch of argumentation generally applied to highly controversial subjects. It is intended to establish the truth of one position and the falsity of another, as opposed to debate which might allow for some common ground.

 

In the past, there have been certain accusations against Mormonism, for example, that are so egregiously unjust in the extreme that they can only be adequately rebutted with a polemical defense.

 

I wasn't party to the above cited conversation between Daniel Peterson and  the reporter but if he was quoted accurately, I can only guess this is what he was driving at.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

As I pointed out when this quote was brought up before, engaging in polemics is not necessarily dishonorable. It depends on what the polemical argument is directed against.

 

Polemics is a branch of argumentation generally applied to highly controversial subjects. It is intended to establish the truth of one position and the falsity of another, as opposed to debate which might allow for some common ground.

 

In the past, there have been certain accusations against Mormonism, for example, that are so egregiously unjust in the extreme that they can only be adequately rebutted with a polemical defense.

 

I wasn't party to the above cited conversation between Daniel Peterson and  the reporter but if he was quoted accurately, I can only guess this is what he was driving at.

Of course that is what Dan meant, and he said so rather explicitly, just as he did on the use of ad hominems.  However, tonie may not understand the difference between a review journal (where some rather negative things must sometimes be said) and the activities of the larger part of FARMS.  I don't understand why he feels it necessary to smear FARMS.  I was there for years and never saw the sort of horrible behavior which tonie attributes to FARMS.

[Calm]

Since he has been banned from this thread you may want to address him in another thread where he is pushing the same line:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64554-for-those-who-want-to-argue-polemics-citation-included/?p=1209448686

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course that is what Dan meant, and he said so rather explicitly, just as he did on the use of ad hominems.  However, tonie may not understand the difference between a review journal (where some rather negative things must sometimes be said) and the activities of the larger part of FARMS.  I don't understand why he feels it necessary to smear FARMS.  I was there for years and never saw the sort of horrible behavior which tonie attributes to FARMS.

Having observed the output of FARMS for years, I agree with this.

 

tonie is female, by the way.

[Scott Lloyd]

Resurrecting this thread to say there is more to this continuing saga.

 

From Daniel Peterson's blog today:

 

He [Royal Skousen] also announced that the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project that he’s led with meticulous and dedicated scholarship for roughly three decades will no longer be affiliated with the Maxwell Institute, but is moving to BYU Studies, and that electronic editions of the Project’s books will be published by the Interpreter Foundation.

 

 

Blair Hodges, NAMI PR guy, posted this response on Daniel's blog:

 

 

A point of clarification is in order. The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship maintains its historic connection to Royal Skousen's Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon. The Institute is proud of this connection and will continue to provide access to our short history of the project, our video lecture series, and soon, a video of the lecture presented last night at BYU under the co-sponsorship of the Institute, BYU Studies, and the Religious Studies Center.

While working on volume three of the CTP, Professor Skousen desired to negotiate a new publishing agreement with the University for the project's completion. According to this arrangement, BYU Studies will produce volume three of the Critical Text Project (which will include multiple parts, as volume 4 did). According to BYU associate academic vice president Alan Harker, a Critical Text Project website will be created which will host digital versions of the project, links to which will be provided on the Maxwell Institute's website and at other venues such as BYU Studies. I do not have an estimated time as to when that website will be made available. (As an aside, the Joseph Smith Papers Project will also be providing excellent access to the original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon in the coming months and years, having drawn on Skousen's project along with editor Robin Jensen's oversight. Full color scans of each page along with transcriptions will be available for study there, as with other JSP publications.)

This new arrangement in no way suggests a shift in the Maxwell Institute's dedication to research on the Book of Mormon in its ancient and modern settings. Our Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies continues to produce rigorous scholarship on the keystone scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its ancient and modern contexts. The latest volume of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, to be released on Tuesday, September 15, contains several excellent articles looking at the book's ancient setting. Follow the MIBlog for more info on this.

We hope there will be no attempts to politicize this important project or the Book of Mormon and that scholars of all persuasions can utilize the book's message in the scholarship they produce about it. Further questions can be sent to me at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu.

Thanks,

—Blair Hodges, public communications, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship