Recognition Of Jerry Bradford

[Analytics]

Three years ago, fans of "classic FARMS" heaped quite a bit of scorn onto Jerry Bradford, the director of BYU's Maxwell Institute at the time.  Accusations were commonly heard of Bradford orchestrating and executing a coup d'état that betrayed FARMS, its donors, Mormon Apologetics, BYU, and the Church of Jesus Christ itself.  We repeatedly heard conspiracy theories of why he did this, such as that he decided to usurp the authority of his position as director to completely change the charter of FARMS for no other reason than wanting it to match his personal preferences regarding Mormon scholarship.

 

Today, we should all acknowledge that Bradford stands vindicated.  We now know that the decision to change the direction of FARMS came from BYU administration under the authority of BYU's Board of Trustees.  Bradford's job entailed two parts: executing the change, and taking the heat and criticism that the fans of "classic FARMS" were going to stir up over the change in course.

 

To anybody who thinks that apologetics is in any way important to the Church and think that the Church is a "house of order" that demands faithfulness and above all loyalty, this isn't a surprise. 

 

Bradford's loyalty is exemplary, and we should all admire the way he kept his cool and protected his superiors by refusing to explain that the criticism heaped upon himself should really be targeted towards them.  He was instructed to be the fall guy, and he did it without complaining.

 

Now, some of you might be wondering if its too early to vindicate Bradford.  After all, he is retiring, and this might be a change in course back to the original vision of the original FARMS.  It might even be a forced retirement.  But as-of today, Bill Hamblin has conceded the point.  In his words:

 

 

As noted earlier, Jerry Bradford is stepping down as director of the Maxwell Institute, and BYU has chosen a committee to select his successor.  (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/now-accepting-nominations-and-applications-for-next-institute-director/)  Unfortunately, the mandate of the committee has not been made public, but let’s take a look at what the composition of that committee can tell us about the staying power of the Bradford Junta’s “new direction.”  

 

When academic committees are formed they are often merely showpieces to give the facade of faculty consultation and participation.  Quite frequently a decision has already been made as to who the leader, or what new policy will be before the committee is even selected.  (See Religious Education’s implementation of a new curriculum agains the protests of nearly all its ancient scripture faculty.)  Committees are often given a mandate, telling them what the university expects them to do.  This mandate has not been made public in this case.  Generally committees also can only make recommendations.  The university administrators (in this case Alan Harker, a microbiologist who knows nothing about the field, and Brent Webb, a mechanical engineer and AVP) will make the final decision, and can ignore the advice of a committee if they so choose—subject to approval of the university president and Board of Trustees.  

 

The first thing to note is that no one on the committee, with the exception of Dana Pike, has ever published anything on ancient Book of Mormon studies.  Indeed, nearly all of them are not Book of Mormon scholars in any sense of the word.  The committee is furthermore slightly weighted in the direction of modern Mormon Studies, but the reality is that most of the committee members have nothing to do with Mormon Studies at all!  

I know of no other university where a committee organized to choose a new director for a research institute would be composed mainly of people who don’t know anything about field of the Institute!  Only one (Pike) does anything related to ancient scriptural studies, and only two (Fluhman and Neilson) have anything to do with Mormon Studies.  How could I, as a historian, possibly be expected to make an informed decision in selecting a new director of a research institute for microbiology.  It’s preposterous.  Yet there it is.  

Alan Harker = microbiologist

Chadra Poulson = administrative staff assistant

Morgan Davis = Islamic philosophy

Kristian Heal = Syraic studies

Jeremy King = accountant

Spencer Fluhman = 19th century US and Mormon history

George Handley = comparative modern literature

Dana Pike = BYU religion, Bible

Reid L. Neilson = Mormon studies

Bruce C. Hafen = law professor

 

Note that there is no voice on the committee to speak for classic-FARMS and ancient Book of Mormon Studies.  Two of the four members of the original Bradford Junta (Heal and Davis), which implemented the coup which ousted Dan Peterson and established the new direction, are on the committee.  Furthermore, neither Gee nor Roper—who like Davis and Heal scholars at the Maxwell Institute, but unlike them opposed the new direction and want a return to ancient Book of Mormon studies—are on the committee.  Why?  The only coherent reason is because the administration doesn’t want those voices to be heard in the selection of the new director.  If they have not already selected Bradford’s successor, in which case this committee is a showcase, they have clearly decided that they want someone who will sustain the new direction.  

 

At one time I had hoped that the Bradford coup was a fluke, and that the BYU administration would come to its senses and would eventually adjust course of the Maxwell Institute to return to its roots in ancient Mormon studies.  Given the composition of this committee, this is clearly not going to happen. Through their selection of members of this committee, the BYU administration is clearly affirming their support for the new direction.  As I’ve noted earlier, this is decision is consistent with their long-standing policy of discouraging the serious study of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

 

So, its time to say “goodbye to all that.”  

 

 

Jerry Bradford was given a difficult, unpopular job to do.  He was instructed to protect his superiors by not explaining his motivations.  He did what he was instructed, and was loyal to the end.  It's a thankless job, but ought to be commended.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Analytics

[Russell C McGregor]

Three years ago, fans of "classic FARMS" heaped quite a bit of scorn onto Jerry Bradford, the director of BYU's Maxwell Institute at the time.  Accusations were commonly heard of Bradford orchestrating and executing a coup d'état that betrayed FARMS, its donors, Mormon Apologetics, BYU, and the Church of Jesus Christ itself.  We repeatedly heard conspiracy theories of why he did this, such as that he decided to usurp the authority of his position as director to completely change the charter of FARMS for no other reason than wanting it to match his personal preferences regarding Mormon scholarship.

 

Today, we should all acknowledge that Bradford stands vindicated.

Why?

 

We now know that the decision to change the direction of FARMS came from BYU administration under the authority of BYU's Board of Trustees.  Bradford's job entailed two parts: executing the change, and taking the heat and criticism that the fans of "classic FARMS" were going to stir up over the change in course.

CFR, please.

 

To anybody who thinks that apologetics is in any way important to the Church and think that the Church is a "house of order" that demands faithfulness and above all loyalty, this isn't a surprise. 

 

Bradford's loyalty is exemplary, and we should all admire the way he kept his cool and protected his superiors by refusing to explain that the criticism heaped upon himself should really be targeted towards them.  He was instructed to be the fall guy, and he did it without complaining.

So, the evidence that he was "instructed" to cover for his superiors is that he never told anyone about those instructions?

 

It doesn't take much, does it?

 

Now, some of you might be wondering if its too early to vindicate Bradford.  After all, he is retiring, and this might be a change in course back to the original vision of the original FARMS.  It might even be a forced retirement.  But as-of today, Bill Hamblin has conceded the point.  In his words:

 

His words don't say what you assert. Sorry. 

 

Jerry Bradford was given a difficult, unpopular job to do.  He was instructed to protect his superiors by not explaining his motivations.  He did what he was instructed, and was loyal to the end.  It's a thankless job, but ought to be commended.

 

Analytics likes Jerry Bradford.

 

Stalin liked Philby, Burgess and MacLean.  

 

Poster removed.

[jkwilliams]

The committee is composed of solid academics who are well-qualified to put Book of Mormon Studies in the context of their disciplines, regardless of their having published apologetic work or not. The lack of any "classic FARMS" folks is self-explanatory, and it's strange that Hamblin is unhappy that the committee doesn't include people like Gee or Roper who presumably oppose the institute's direction and goals.

But it is kind of funny to hear that Jerry Bradford is a traitor in the vein of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean. Seems like a dose of perspective is needed.

[juliann]

 

 

Today, we should all acknowledge that Bradford stands vindicated.  We now know that the decision to change the direction of FARMS came from BYU administration under the authority of BYU's Board of Trustees.  Bradford's job entailed two parts: executing the change, and taking the heat and criticism that the fans of "classic FARMS" were going to stir up over the change in course.

 

I think the MI will do just fine. But I have not even seen what you are claiming here even hinted at. Do you have a source for this? It would certainly put the whole mess to bed.

[sethpayne]

But it is kind of funny to hear that Jerry Bradford is a traitor in the vein of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean. Seems like a dose of perspective is needed.

 

Yes.  And I imagine a "traitor" would have been forced out by University administration if his actions were not in line with the goals of the University.

 

I think that is what gets under people's skin.  Jerry changed the course of the MI and the administration stood by him.  So in that sense, University administration has been traitorous too.

 

But I'm still trying to figure out exactly *what* they betrayed.

Edited September 8, 2015 by sethpayne

[Russell C McGregor]

The committee is composed of solid academics who are well-qualified to put Book of Mormon Studies in the context of their disciplines, regardless of their having published apologetic work or not.

Yes, microbiologists, accountants, and various others who have no training or publications in ancient scripture are "well-qualified to put Book of Mormon Studies in the context of their disciplines."

What does that mean, exactly?

The lack of any "classic FARMS" folks is self-explanatory, and it's strange that Hamblin is unhappy that the committee doesn't include people like Gee or Roper who presumably oppose the institute's direction and goals.

But it is kind of funny to hear that Jerry Bradford is a traitor in the vein of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean. Seems like a dose of perspective is needed.

Given that an implacable anti-Mormon like "Analytics" is singing his praises, I think the perspective is already there.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, microbiologists, accountants, and various others who have no training or publications in ancient scripture are "well-qualified to put Book of Mormon Studies in the context of their disciplines."

What does that mean, exactly?

If one can't understand how differing academic disciplines help contextual the Book of Mormon, well, there's not much to say.

Given that an implacable anti-Mormon like "Analytics" is singing his praises, I think the perspective is already there.

Since when is Analytics an "implacable anti-Mormon"? Again, there is a serious lack of perspective here.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't see it, Analytics, unless your wit is so dry that even a master sarcastic as myself can't see sarcasm.  Hamblin concedes nothing, although he should.

[Russell C McGregor]

If one can't understand how differing academic disciplines help contextual the Book of Mormon, well, there's not much to say.

 

 

In theory, they could. Hamblin, however, is talking about Ancient Book of Mormon studies, not doctrinal or devotional studies. There's little obvious relevance in the qualifications of any of the listed committee members, except possibly Dana Pike.

 

Since when is Analytics an "implacable anti-Mormon"? Again, there is a serious lack of perspective here.

 

Only since the first time I ever saw him post. And every other post since that.

[Russell C McGregor]

Yes.  And I imagine a "traitor" would have been forced out by University administration if his actions were not in line with the goals of the University.

 

I think that is what gets under people's skin.  Jerry changed the course of the MI and the administration stood by him.  So in that sense, University administration has been traitorous too.

 

But I'm still trying to figure out exactly *what* they betrayed.

 

What did the donors to FARMS think they were financially supporting?

[jkwilliams]

In theory, they could. Hamblin, however, is talking about Ancient Book of Mormon studies, not doctrinal or devotional studies. There's little obvious relevance in the qualifications of any of the listed committee members, except possibly Dana Pike.

As is abundantly clear by now, BYU is not pursuing "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies." Hamblin is complaining that they haven't published anything about the Book of Mormon at all, wondering why their perspective was sought. Well, it's pretty obvious that the new MI is taking a broader approach to the Book of Mormon and Mormon Studies, hence their inclusion. Hamblin's complaint is clearly that there isn't anyone like him on the committee. No kidding.

 

 

Only since the first time I ever saw him post. And every other post since that.

Some people see everything in black and white, I suppose. Hence the lack of perspective.

[Senator]

So, its time to say “goodbye to all that.” 

 

 

 

I doubt that.

[Analytics]

Why?

CFR, please.

 

What we now know is that BYU's vision of MI's future and Bradford's vision are aligned.  BYU isn't using Bradford's retirement as an opportunity to reverse course and get mopologetics back into the MI; it is reaffirming the departure.  So really, there are only two possible routes to have gotten hear.  Either this originated as a Bradford junta and thanks to his incredible leadership and persuasion skills he was able to get the administration to follow him on this new course, or Bradford was following them. 

 

Hamblin said today, "every single BYU administrator on every level of the administration has explicitly discouraged me from doing ancient Book of Mormon studies in my annual performance (“stewardship”) reviews."  The anti-apologetics position of the BYU administration is consistent, and instructing Bradford to do what he did follows that consistency.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Analytics

[jkwilliams]

So, its time to say “goodbye to all that.” 

 

 

 

I doubt that.

So do I. It's just weird for someone to get slapped around by Philip Jenkins and then blame BYU for the lack of respect given to "Ancient Book of Mormon Studies."

[Analytics]

I don't see it, Analytics, unless your wit is so dry that even a master sarcastic as myself can't see sarcasm.  Hamblin concedes nothing, although he should.

 

Exactly.

[sethpayne]

What did the donors to FARMS think they were financially supporting?

 

Brigham Young University

[churchistrue]

Three years ago, fans of "classic FARMS" heaped quite a bit of scorn onto Jerry Bradford, the director of BYU's Maxwell Institute at the time.  Accusations were commonly heard of Bradford orchestrating and executing a coup d'état that betrayed FARMS, its donors, Mormon Apologetics, BYU, and the Church of Jesus Christ itself.  We repeatedly heard conspiracy theories of why he did this, such as that he decided to usurp the authority of his position as director to completely change the charter of FARMS for no other reason than wanting it to match his personal preferences regarding Mormon scholarship.

 

Today, we should all acknowledge that Bradford stands vindicated.  We now know that the decision to change the direction of FARMS came from BYU administration under the authority of BYU's Board of Trustees.  Bradford's job entailed two parts: executing the change, and taking the heat and criticism that the fans of "classic FARMS" were going to stir up over the change in course.

 

To anybody who thinks that apologetics is in any way important to the Church and think that the Church is a "house of order" that demands faithfulness and above all loyalty, this isn't a surprise. 

 

Bradford's loyalty is exemplary, and we should all admire the way he kept his cool and protected his superiors by refusing to explain that the criticism heaped upon himself should really be targeted towards them.  He was instructed to be the fall guy, and he did it without complaining.

 

Now, some of you might be wondering if its too early to vindicate Bradford.  After all, he is retiring, and this might be a change in course back to the original vision of the original FARMS.  It might even be a forced retirement.  But as-of today, Bill Hamblin has conceded the point.  In his words:

 

 

 

Jerry Bradford was given a difficult, unpopular job to do.  He was instructed to protect his superiors by not explaining his motivations.  He did what he was instructed, and was loyal to the end.  It's a thankless job, but ought to be commended.

Are you sure about this?  Hamblin doesn't appear to be conceding anything, and I think he'd be in complete disagreement with your take on Bradford and the involvement level of the Board of Trustees.  

[cacheman]

"When academic committees are formed they are often merely showpieces to give the facade of faculty consultation and participation.  Quite frequently a decision has already been made as to who the leader, or what new policy will be before the committee is even selected.  (See Religious Education’s implementation of a new curriculum agains the protests of nearly all its ancient scripture faculty.)  Committees are often given a mandate, telling them what the university expects them to do.  This mandate has not been made public in this case.  Generally committees also can only make recommendations.  The university administrators (in this case Alan Harker, a microbiologist who knows nothing about the field, and Brent Webb, a mechanical engineer and AVP) will make the final decision, and can ignore the advice of a committee if they so choose—subject to approval of the university president and Board of Trustees."

 

I might be a little naive, but isn't a search committee chair for a director position usually another administrator from another program?  Does BYU assign search committees without calling for volunteers from interested parties among the faculty?  The way Bill describes it here, it seems that the administration at BYU maintains a tight grip on the search process.  Are search committee decisions commonly ignored.... or are his concerns specific to this case?

[Russell C McGregor]

Brigham Young University

 

Clearly you aren't aware that FARMS was originally set up separately from BYU; that its donors supported its programs; that it was incorporated into BYU later on, and with fulsome promises that its original mission would be supported and continued.

[churchistrue]

Exactly.

Grrrr, I hate it when my sarcasm meter isn't functioning properly.  I'm new here.  That's my excuse.

[jwhitlock]

Yes.  And I imagine a "traitor" would have been forced out by University administration if his actions were not in line with the goals of the University.

 

I think that is what gets under people's skin.  Jerry changed the course of the MI and the administration stood by him.  So in that sense, University administration has been traitorous too.

 

But I'm still trying to figure out exactly *what* they betrayed.

 

As has been noted, the original stated mission of FARMS, along with promises to retain that emphasis, was betrayed.

 

However, what has been most troubling to me was how the putsch was carried out. The method of dismissing the editorial board was despicable, to put it charitably. Those of us who must work in the world and deal with the lack of ethics in how people are treated are well aware of how the world operates. Yet here we have Bradford, with the apparent support of administrators, throwing honorable people under the bus in a blatant political ploy. It was nauseating.

 

It was also more evidence of how BYU is moving towards accommodation with the world. One wonders how long that will be allowed to go on.

 

Aside from all that, I welcome scholarly analysis of the Book of Mormon from textual, historical and other standpoints. Ultimately, it is what it claims to be. It's clearly not a 19th century work of fiction, despite what those mocking from the spacious building are telling us. There are impressive evidences of its historical roots and those should be further explored. Looking at it as a 19th century text is missing the mark, and I believe BYU and those trying to run it from a worldly perspective will come under condemnation because they are ignoring it.

[strappinglad]

Grrrr, I hate it when my sarcasm meter isn't functioning properly.  I'm new here.  That's my excuse.

I don't believe the statements were sarcasm, The ' exactly ' referred to the idea that Hamblin should concede.

Could it be that the Board of Trustees has decided to divest the Church of BYU . After all, they allow the BYU biologists to teach evolution as a fact when clearly it isn't.

Is your sarcasm meter working better, churchistrue?

[Robert F. Smith]

The committee is composed of solid academics who are well-qualified to put Book of Mormon Studies in the context of their disciplines, regardless of their having published apologetic work or not. The lack of any "classic FARMS" folks is self-explanatory, and it's strange that Hamblin is unhappy that the committee doesn't include people like Gee or Roper who presumably oppose the institute's direction and goals.

But it is kind of funny to hear that Jerry Bradford is a traitor in the vein of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean. Seems like a dose of perspective is needed.

Hi John,

I thought that the Analytics OP was clear-cut satire . . .

 

Of course, I could be wrong, . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't believe the statements were sarcasm, The ' exactly ' referred to the idea that Hamblin should concede.

Could it be that the Board of Trustees has decided to divest the Church of BYU . After all, they allow the BYU biologists to teach evolution as a fact when clearly it isn't.

Is your sarcasm meter working better, churchistrue?

Sarcasm and satire, strappinglad,

Is there really a difference?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the MI will do just fine. But I have not even seen what you are claiming here even hinted at. Do you have a source for this? It would certainly put the whole mess to bed.

Satire doesn't require citation of sources . . .