Maxwell Institute: Book Of Mormon Could Be "modern" And "fictional" (?)

[sunstoned]

There's no shortage of opposing views or grown-up discussions on BYU's campus.  If anything certain orthodoxies and worldviews are so prevalent many on other campuses (you know, the "Big Boy and Big Girl" Campuses you so laud) that there's little tolerance (among the allegedly-"open-minded") for anything that runs contrary to those orthodoxies and worldviews.

BYU is the poster child of repression of intellectual freedom.  They were censured by the the American Association of University Professors for freedom of speech violations over a decade ago, and they have done nothing to remedy the situation.  Even if you are a tenured professor and you publish or speak out on a subject with an opinion that is anything outside of lock step adherence to current church policy, you will be dismissed. The church and BYU tolerates no dissenting opinions.  

[mormonnewb]

BYU is the poster child of repression of intellectual freedom. They were censured by the the American Association of University Professors for freedom of speech violations over a decade ago, and they have done nothing to remedy the situation. Even if you are a tenured professor and you publish or speak out on a subject with an opinion that is anything outside of lock step adherence to current church policy, you will be dismissed. The church and BYU tolerates no dissenting opinions.

But as I learned on this board several months ago, the purpose of Brigham Young Academy is not higher education. It is to TRAIN the next generation of saints in the all-important skills of proper skirt length, proper facial grooming and the rejection of any opinion that has not been approved by the FP (or the Church's PR department).

Those of us who have been confused about the "university" part in BYU are simply being too literal. After all, McDonald's runs a Hamburger University, but no one is expecting its students to be capable of critical thinking upon receiving their cap and grease apron at graduation. It's simply not their "thang."

Likewise to impose university standards of academic freedom on Brigham Young Academy is similarly naive. Shame on you, Sunstoned. Shame! Shame! Shame!

[Kenngo1969]

BYU is the poster child of repression of intellectual freedom.  

OK.  You're welcome to that opinion, but it betrays a startling ignorance, not only of history, and not only of current events, but also of the current state of affairs at BYU.*  I heard a rumor from a little birdie that one or two BYU faculty members might, fleetingly, be considering coming out of the closet as ... [Gasp! ] ... Democrats!

 

They were censured by the the American Association of University Professors for freedom of speech violations over a decade ago, and they have done nothing to remedy the situation.

 

One or two of us, perhaps, might (if we permitted our imaginations to run completely wild) be able to think of one or two reasons why AAUP should not be permitted to be the ultimate arbiter of such things.  As long as anyone else's sacred cows are being butchered and barbecued, something tells me you're completely fine with it.  When, on the other hand, an entity such as AAUP inevitably got around to butchering and barbecuing your sacred cows, you'd likely scream bloody murder and demand the same protections which you so blithely dismissed as necessary for others. 

 

Even if you are a tenured professor and you publish or speak out on a subject with an opinion that is anything outside of lock step adherence to current church policy, you will be dismissed. The church and BYU tolerates no dissenting opinions.

The priorities of BYU and of its sponsoring institution are well known.  If one wishes to put in the time and effort necessary to specialize academically in an esoteric discipline with tunnel-vision hopes, one day, of teaching at an institution sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he should ensure that he understands the full ramifications of such a choice, and, perhaps, should expect a limited amount of sympathy from others if he later claims persecution at the hands of the Big, Bad, Mean Church or of its Big, Bad, Mean Flagship University.  As I stated in my previous post, it's not as though such a person's views, whatever they are and upon whatever subject, would not find a receptive audience elsewhere in academia.

 

^*I admit, I didn't catch the full context of this, but I just saw a headline flash across a "news ticker" at the bottom of my TV screen that said, "UN official says ISIS accepts diversity."  Perhaps the career fortunes of someone who has been persecuted for his views by BYU or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would improve if he investigated academic opportunities in an area of the world controlled by ISIS?

Edited March 28, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[morgan.deane]

 

 

I have--in print--suggested that Mormon invented dialogue and created explanations for some things he simply couldn't have known. I have not had any repercussions from my suggestions about the nature of history in the Book of Mormon, and was even invited to talk with the Church Curriculum Committee. They have lots of people come talk to them, I was in no way special in the invitation. However, there was also no indication that my historical but not absolute reading of the text was a possibility. Suggesting that we read historical documents critically is quite different from declaring that they have no historicity.

 

 

Would you mind sharing where you made these arguments?  My second book is tentatively titled "Rethinking the Book of Mormon" and it offers a more nuanced view of the history within the text, and shows instances where the narrative is messaged and might leave out important details that suggest we revise our understanding of both heroes and villains. So I think your statements might have bearing on that.  

 

For those interested you can read more about it here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/02/rethinking-book-of-mormon.html

 

And here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/02/rethinking-moroni-and-great-war.html

[readstoomuch]

But as I learned on this board several months ago, the purpose of Brigham Young Academy is not higher education. It is to TRAIN the next generation of saints in the all-important skills of proper skirt length, proper facial grooming and the rejection of any opinion that has not been approved by the FP (or the Church's PR department).

Those of us who have been confused about the "university" part in BYU are simply being too literal. After all, McDonald's runs a Hamburger University, but no one is expecting its students to be capable of critical thinking upon receiving their cap and grease apron at graduation. It's simply not their "thang."

Likewise to impose university standards of academic freedom on Brigham Young Academy is similarly naive. Shame on you, Sunstoned. Shame! Shame! Shame!

BYU has its problems.  Every other university I attended, my kids attended, I lived by or got to know faculty and students from-has problems.  When I was in Evolutionary Strategies we learned about Evolution.  In Economics we read and spoke about Marx.  US History included revisionist history that didn`t always show the US being perfect.  As I look back on BYU I feel very blessed and honored to have gone there.  My education has served me well the last 30 years.  I am glad that they try to give you the tools of the gospel to take on the controversies of the world.  I hope my youngest two can go to school there.  I am also pleased that the Institute programs are available at other universities.  I know the Maxwell Institute is not going the direction that some here like, but I liked Paul Owens article and a number of things I read from MI.  You can always go over to Mormon Interpreter to get another view on things.  Doesn`t MI show some allowance of not always towing the party line at BYU?

[cinepro]

Get my drift, Newby?  Or did you just blindly list it for the "R" rating alone?  Because someone in your ward thinks that is an absolute rule?

We've hashed over the R-rated movie issue many times on this forum, but it's kind of a low blow to criticize someone for using it as an illustration of rules Mormons follow.

Anyone who grew up in the Church in the 1980's or 90's probably lived in an environment where it was never, ever okay to watch an unedited R-rated film.  In my neck of suburbia, there were definitely the kids and families who would never (most), those who would sometimes (some), and those who would casually (fewer that admitted it).

 

When I was on my mission in the early 1990's, my mission president had his younger children living with them.  At one mission conference, the mission president's wife shared an example of "being a missionary" when her 12 year old daughter went to a slumber party and refused to watch an R-rated movie, and when asked by the other kids why, responded "because there is a prophet who has told us not to" (I assume the other kids didn't CFR).  This is the attitude many were raised with.

 

Now I've met some LDS families (and am related to one) who won't let their children watch PG-13 movies (except for a few that have been pre-screened by the parents).  So let's not pretend this isn't a "thing" in LDS culture, even to today.

 

But I like Orson Scott Card's take on the question: Is there an R-rated Movie Commandment?

Edited March 28, 2015 by cinepro

[Dgal]

Scary. The idea that the Book of Mormon either modern or fictional is very scary. It's a historical and truthful account of the ancient Americans. We either believe it, or we don't. We cannot be lukewarm in the defense of it.

President and Prophet Benson was very clear on this point. It is the keystone of our faith. We must not, we can not waffle on this.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

We've hashed over the R-rated movie issue many times on this forum, but it's kind of a low blow to criticize someone for using it as an illustration of rules Mormons follow.

Anyone who grew up in the Church in the 1980's or 90's probably lived in an environment where it was never, ever okay to watch an unedited R-rated film.  In my neck of suburbia, there were definitely the kids and families who would never (most), those who would sometimes (some), and those who would casually (fewer that admitted it).

 

When I was on my mission in the early 1990's, my mission president had his younger children living with them.  At one mission conference, the mission president's wife shared an example of "being a missionary" when her 12 year old daughter went to a slumber party and refused to watch an R-rated movie, and when asked by the other kids why, responded "because there is a prophet who has told us not to" (I assume the other kids didn't CFR).  This is the attitude many were raised with.

 

Now I've met some LDS families (and am related to one) who won't let their children watch PG-13 movies (except for a few that have been pre-screened by the parents).  So let's not pretend this isn't a "thing" in LDS culture, even to today.

 

But I like Orson Scott Card's take on the question: Is there an R-rated Movie Commandment?

You're carrying coals to Newcastle, cinepro, and (as Card recommends) you need to go back and look at the actual context -- in this case the context of Newby's remark.  I happen to agree with Card, and I very much regret the folklore version of Mormonism we are often saddled with, and in which you often participate (including the reinforcement you offer here).

 

On the other hand, I genuinely wanted to know Newby's reaction to the film (if he saw it), and whether he had a substantive reason for taking a stand about that matter either way.  It would tell me a lot about him, just as Card's approval of that film tells me a lot about Card.

 

Meantime, what was your opinion of the film, cinepro.  Was an "R" rating justified, and, if so, why?  If not, why not?

[Robert F. Smith]

Scary. The idea that the Book of Mormon either modern or fictional is very scary. It's a historical and truthful account of the ancient Americans. We either believe it, or we don't. We cannot be lukewarm in the defense of it.

President and Prophet Benson was very clear on this point. It is the keystone of our faith. We must not, we can not waffle on this.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/the-book-of-mormon-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng

You are setting up a very high bar for everyone, including those new to the faith, or those who do not accept the Mormon faith at all.  Why should they get into lockstep, or pretend not to have doubts.  We encounter doubts on this board all the time.  Legitimate concerns need to be addressed.  Questions need to be answered.  What is really scary is that we may intimidate some members who have yet to inform themselves, and we need to be patient with them, and not expect too much of them.  This life is a process, and all of us are at different places or stages in our development.  We all need to be given room to breathe.  You might want to go easy on the newbies or those who are underdeveloped.  Don't scare them off with your absolute demands.

[Robert F. Smith]

BYU is the poster child of repression of intellectual freedom.  They were censured by the the American Association of University Professors for freedom of speech violations over a decade ago, and they have done nothing to remedy the situation.  Even if you are a tenured professor and you publish or speak out on a subject with an opinion that is anything outside of lock step adherence to current church policy, you will be dismissed. The church and BYU tolerates no dissenting opinions.  

Funny how the mere existence of Hugh Nibley falsifies your absolute statements here.  As a social critic of BYU, and of Mormon dress and grooming standards, etc., Hugh found himself being criticized and chided by Sterling McMurrin -- who defended BYU.  Pres. Wilkinson found himself battling faculty members (who prevailed against him).  The true picture is a good deal more complex and nuanced than you prefer to let on, for whatever reason . . .

[mormonnewb]

You're carrying coals to Newcastle, cinepro, and (as Card recommends) you need to go back and look at the actual context -- in this case the context of Newby's remark. I happen to agree with Card, and I very much regret the folklore version of Mormonism we are often saddled with, and in which you often participate (including the reinforcement you offer here).

On the other hand, I genuinely wanted to know Newby's reaction to the film (if he saw it), and whether he had a substantive reason for taking a stand about that matter either way. It would tell me a lot about him, just as Card's approval of that film tells me a lot about Card.

Meantime, what was your opinion of the film, cinepro. Was an "R" rating justified, and, if so, why? If not, why not?

To answer your questions:

I saw the film ... ONCE. I've never had the desire to see it again, although I did appreciate getting a clearer picture of just what the Savior endured on our behalf.

I used that movie as my r-rated example in a Nibley-esque jab at what I see as arbitrary rules imposed upon the saints (whether from above or below). If you remember, the preceding "sin" on my list was consuming hot caffeine (my unartful way of pointing out the nonsensical distinction between a cup of coffee being "of the devil" and 72 oz of Red Bull being an elixir of the gods).

I chose the Passion of the Christ in particular because I think it illustrates the absurdity of the "rule" quite well. Schindler's List would be an equally fine example. Despite their r-ratings, both films tackle important subjects and contain lessons that need to be reinforced with each succeeding generation.

As for your desire to not reinforce the "perception" that there is an r-rated prohibition amongst the saints, good luck with that one. I didn't invent that from whole cloth. Nor did I read about it on an ex-mo site.

I first encountered it when trying to choose a movie with my HT for date night with our wives. I suggested a movie that was r-rated and he explained that he and his wife didn't watch r-rated movies. He then explained that we might not want to either as "the Brethren" have cautioned against it.

Now, in fairness, he didn't say that it was the sin next to hot caffeine, but he was clearly going to heed the advise of the Brethren (even if he had mistakenly oversimplified their advice). And I don't think that he was alone in that regard. For MANY saints, this is a hard and fast rule (without regards to the context of the film). And for us to pretend that it isn't the case will not make it any less true.

And yes, it bugs me too. I think that it leaves us somewhat ill-equipped to deal with the ugly aspects of life. Because Disney can only cover so many topics -- and the holocaust, the sex trafficking of children, domestic violence, sectarian violence, etc. are far down on their queue. But that's the topic for another thread.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the problems come in when how do the various modes of media present their ideas in such a way that neither insults my intelligence nor my morals.

[LifeOnaPlate]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom/

[smac97]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom/

Hmm. Some interesting bits:

 

 

(John Gee:) “He concludes that the Book of Mormon is a ‘fictional (though ancient) narrative.’. . . Since the Book of Mormon claims to have come from the New World, Owen is arguing that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.”

(Paul Owen:) This is an inaccurate generalization of my article’s argument. First of all, the tone of my actual wording in the article is more tentative than Gee suggests: “What I am suggesting, in essence, is that the Book of Mormon could be taken as a genuinely restored ancient text (italics in original) with a fictional narrative that originated in the Old World” (p. 99). Note the qualifiers: “suggesting” and “could be.” Those qualifiers were offered out of a mindfulness of the context in which I was writing (a publication of BYU’s Maxwell Institute). In the article, I neither made a hard commitment to the Book of Mormon’s fictional and/or modern character on the one hand, nor to its origin in the Old World as opposed to New World (whether ancient or modern) on the other.

 

I think I see his point. Gee claimed that Owen "concludes" that The Book of Mormon "is" yada yada, and Owen is saying that he is only "suggesting" that The Book of Mormon "could be" yada yada. That's a reasonable distinction, particularly given the author (an evangelical protestant) and the publishing venue (an imprint at the LDS Church's flagship university).

Here's a (somewhat stinging) closing remark from Mr. Owen:

 

I find it disappointing that someone of Gee’s obvious intelligence and abilities could not devote his attention to the substance of my article, and instead chose to use it for apologetic target practice. If Latter-day Saints want non-LDS scholars to take their ideas and their sacred texts seriously (and I believe many do), they must be prepared to patiently enter into such discussions with outsiders who do not share all of their presuppositions. To do that, it will be necessary to view Scripture as common ground on which we can stand with people of good will and look into life’s deepest questions, rather than always and only a battleground on which to slay those whose faith commitments differ from our own.

Interesting stuff!

 

(Editor's note): Dr. Gee is invited to respond to these queries in an upcoming installment of "Scholar to Scholar" as well. He has since posted another critique of Owen's article on his personal blog, and Owen is again invited to respond here. —BHodges

Here is a link to Dr. Gee's second blog post on this subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 30, 2015 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I saw the film ... ONCE. I've never had the desire to see it again, although I did appreciate getting a clearer picture of just what the Savior endured on our behalf.

Thanks for your candor.  I too saw it, and did not feel the least concern that the "R" rating should bar any good Mormon from seeing it.  However, since the "R" rating was clearly applied due to the extreme violence, I can now advise children and most adults that the film is much too violent.  So violent in fact that it becomes absurd and more of a living crucifix than a true account of the sort of beating Jesus was subjected to.  Such a beating alone would have killed him before they could get him to the cross.  Since the film was not done in English, one could not know whether the street Latin used by the Roman soldiers included cussing.

I also felt that the depiction of Satan was unnecessarily odd.  I thought the use of Aramaic and Latin as the languages of the film was a good idea, but I would have cast an Israeli Yemenite Jew as Jesus.  So, I give Mel Gibson a mixed review on depicting how Jesus' Passion actually took place.

 

I used that movie as my r-rated example in a Nibley-esque jab at what I see as arbitrary rules imposed upon the saints (whether from above or below). If you remember, the preceding "sin" on my list was consuming hot caffeine (my unartful way of pointing out the nonsensical distinction between a cup of coffee being "of the devil" and 72 oz of Red Bull being an elixir of the gods).

Yeh, my wife has to have her daily fix of caffeine in a 32 oz Pepsi with crushed ice.

 

As for your desire to not reinforce the "perception" that there is an r-rated prohibition amongst the saints, good luck with that one. I didn't invent that from whole cloth. Nor did I read about it on an ex-mo site.

I first encountered it when trying to choose a movie with my HT for date night with our wives. I suggested a movie that was r-rated and he explained that he and his wife didn't watch r-rated movies. He then explained that we might not want to either as "the Brethren" have cautioned against it.

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

We need to immediately disregard such phony baloney rules, which not only diminish all of us as Mormons, but diminish the Brethren as well.  The ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons latch onto such nonsense as though it represents the authentic nature of Mormonism.

[smac97]

Also, there appears to be a rather intense discussion on this subject over on Daniel Peterson's blog (in the comments).  Here's an excerpt from remarks left by Louis Midgley:

I know Dr. Owen and have had several long conversations with him. I am aware of his previous publications, and also his shift away from his original attachment to a version of recent conservative Protestant theology. But none of this is an issue under consideration. What we need is an explanation of how the flawed essay by Dr. Owen could have been published by the Maxwell Institute.

One explanation could be that the Maxwell Institute now some new, young and inexperienced editors. But we also have the possibility of what might actually be behind the so-called “new direction” promised after the abrupt firing of Professor Peterson and the subsequent resignation of Professor Hoskinson. Or has there been a lapse in the oversight at the Maxwell Institute?

...

How could that essay, given the serious flaws exposed by Dr. Gee, have been published by the Maxwell Institute? If Dr. Gee is even close to being right, then the essay in question is awful. I don’t take pleasure in seeing Dr. Owen humiliated. How could such an essay, which is aimed at the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, have passed any reasonable peer review or competent editorial supervision?

Oi!

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate

Edited March 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Never mind.

Ah, the blessings of repentance!

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know what else to call the current state of affairs than "perverse."  It used to be that critics/skeptics/outsiders wrote about Mormon texts and topics elsewhere, and defenders used Maxwell Institute organs as fora for critique and response.  Now, outsiders are writing in Maxwell Institute organs, while defenders now have been marginalized and forced to find other fora for such critique and response.

 

Do I have that about right?  

[tonie]

I don't know what else to call the current state of affairs than "perverse."  It used to be that critics/skeptics/outsiders wrote about Mormon texts and topics elsewhere, and defenders used Maxwell Institute organs as fora for critique and response.  Now, outsiders are writing in Maxwell Institute organs, while defenders now have been marginalized and forced to find other fora for such critique and response.

 

Do I have that about right?  

 

Given that Maxwell Institute (FARMS Review), under the direction of Daniel Peterson, published this accused critic; then I suspect you do not "have that about right".

 

And given:

 

(Editor's note): Dr. Gee is invited to respond to these queries in an upcoming installment of "Scholar to Scholar" as well. He has since posted another critique of Owen's article on his personal blog, and Owen is again invited to respond here. —BHodges

 

I suspect you do not "have that about right".

[readstoomuch]

I think Paul Owen is trying pretty hard to have a dialogue with LDS scholars.  John Gee writes much that I like, but not always.  I think he is going over the top on this one.  When I first read Mosser and Owen in the 1999 FARMS Review of Books, I was surprised at the thought of reading anti-Mormons in an LDS publication.  Then I realized they were`t anti-Mormon and were trying to build some bridges.  I don`t see his line of thinking much different than Krister Stendahl`s saying that the Book of Mormon reminded him of Targums-inspired commentaries of the scriptures.  These Targums were often based on some mythology, but were considered inspired.  Krister was also a good friend to the LDS academic community.  He was part of the non-LDS authors who wrote in Reflections on Mormonism, a Truman Madsen project in 1978.  These scholars tried to build some bridges, but not every word they wrote in those essays was faith-promoting, but were respectful.  

 

I can add to the list, but Paul Owen and others are trying and don`t deserve to be shot down any more than the Maxwell Institute does.  We have to be willing to read literature that isn`t always parroting what we want to hear back to us.  The volume that the MI printed Paul Owen`s has a number of other articles by non-Mormons.  I found several of them faith-promoting.  I still read Mormon Interpreter and listen to the FAIR conference.  I have learned from all of them.  

[sunstoned]

Funny how the mere existence of Hugh Nibley falsifies your absolute statements here.  As a social critic of BYU, and of Mormon dress and grooming standards, etc., Hugh found himself being criticized and chided by Sterling McMurrin -- who defended BYU.  Pres. Wilkinson found himself battling faculty members (who prevailed against him).  The true picture is a good deal more complex and nuanced than you prefer to let on, for whatever reason . . .

It is not my statement, it is an official censorship by the American Association of University Professors for Academic freedom violations.  So it would seem that lots of professors disagree with you.  What is really telling is that BYU was censored over fifteen years ago, and they have done nothing to address the situation.   They are still on the sanction list.  Maybe someone should write a letter to the AAUP and enlighten them on the fact that Nibey and McMurrin once debated each other.   Maybe that would change their minds, or not.

Edited March 30, 2015 by sunstoned

[Kenngo1969]

... I suspect you do not "have that about right".

Meh!

 

 

Wouldn't be the first time you've suspected that.  Probably won't be the last.  Whether you're right or not ...

[Kenngo1969]

It is not my statement, it is an official censorship by the American Association of University Professors for Academic freedom violations.  ...

Oh, noes!  Are these [alleged] "violations" criminal?!!  Could someone go to jail for them?!!

 

Whatever happened to "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and ... obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Sigh!

Edited March 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[sunstoned]

Oh, noes!  Are these [alleged] "violations" criminal?!!  Could someone go to jail for them?!!

 

Whatever happened to "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and ... obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?  Sigh!

Academic freedom, or in this case, the lack of it is a serious issue.  It is nothing to make fun of.