Recognition Of Jerry Bradford

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Oh I'm aware of the history.

 

Was a promise made to original FARMS donors that they would forever remain independent?  No.  FARMS freely chose to join BYU.

[sethpayne]

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.

 

Hey jwhitlock,

 

Did you read the recent article published in JBMS regarding Chiasmus and intention?  It was written by my good friend Carl Cranney and it absolutely supports the BoM as a historical, Hebraic text.  It is a fascinating article.  Published by the MI.  Mark Wright is also published by the MI and he probably has one of the strongest testimonies of the BoM as an ancient text than anyone I've met.  

 

I honestly don't understand the hostility toward the MI.  BYU is a university.  What's so bad about engaging with the wider academic world?  Publications like Interpreter can fill the (important) role of apologetic polemics and FairMormon does a great job. 

 

And FWIW -- I certainly don't believe the MI is laughing at a historical BoM.  

 

Seth

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh I'm aware of the history.

 

Was a promise made to original FARMS donors that they would forever remain independent?  No.  FARMS freely chose to join BYU.

Actually, President Hinckley gave an invitation.  FARMS board members did not appear to have much choice.  I and others opposed the move, foreseeing the debacle which would ensue.  Becoming part of BYU was the kiss of death.  I put my misgivings in writing.  Bill Hamblin noisily resigned from the FARMS Board of Directors.  Then the Board itself was dissolved, and FARMS became a one-man fiefdom.  The specific words in support of the classic FARMS mode of operation, as voiced by both Pres Hinckley and Elder Neal A. Maxwell, were slowly and deliberately ignored.  Had the FARMS Board members foreseen the ultimate result to their beloved research institution, they would have said "No!"  As it is, they had no vision, and the understanding of longtime FARMS donors was thoroughly betrayed.  FARMS was slowly gutted as key people were purged (usually while out of the country).

 

The lesson is clear:  The FARMS Board should have replied: "Thanks, but no thanks.  We are doing quite well, thank you."

[sethpayne]

Actually, President Hinckley gave an invitation.  FARMS board members did not appear to have much choice.  I and others opposed the move, foreseeing the debacle which would ensue.  Becoming part of BYU was the kiss of death.  I put my misgivings in writing.  Bill Hamblin noisily resigned from the FARMS Board of Directors.  Then the Board itself was dissolved, and FARMS became a one-man fiefdom.  The specific words in support of the classic FARMS mode of operation, as voiced by both Pres Hinckley and Elder Neal A. Maxwell, were slowly and deliberately ignored.  Had the FARMS Board members foreseen the ultimate result to their beloved research institution, they would have said "No!"  As it is, they had no vision, and the understanding of longtime FARMS donors was thoroughly betrayed.  FARMS was slowly gutted as key people were purged (usually while out of the country).

 

The lesson is clear:  The FARMS Board should have replied: "Thanks, but no thanks.  We are doing quite well, thank you."

 

I agree with what you say here, Robert.  Mostly.

 

I still think that the "invitation" from Pres. Hinckley could have been turned down gracefully.  I can't imagine Dan Peterson would agree to a bad offer simply because the President simply asked.  Just look at how the folks in Provo reacted when the Church wanted to change laws to allow for certain buildings at the MTC.  Those buildings would have been seriously devalued homes - destroying the long-built wealth by many of the older couples in the area.  They didn't just say no, they said hell no!  Even after they were "invited" to simply go along.  If homeowners can say no the Church I think FARMS could have said no to the Church too. 

 

But who knows.  I doubt President Hinckley had a revelation on the subject to share with the FARMS board but it's possible.  In that case, I can see how the "invitation" wouldn't really be an invitation.

Edited September 9, 2015 by sethpayne

[readstoomuch]

The FARMS/MI fury is kind of interesting and it seemed to come down to Jerry Bradford and Dan Peterson as far as the headlines.  I contributed regularly to FARMS and I thought Dan had done a good job.  The publications  had apologist and polemical bents to them.  I often liked the articles, but you don`t find those types of articles in BYU Studies.  I often liked the answers to what I saw as secular and evangelical anti-Mormon arguments that in many ways have continued or increased on the secular side  Arguments that draw our young people away, including my two oldest children.  On the other hand they were also driven away by religious people bickering about beliefs and social issues, especially if is shrill. They want a reasoned civil discussion   Another part of the equation for my two kids was for social justice to be part of the Church`s mission.  I can`t go as far as they do, but treating people of all stripes with kindness is a noble goal even if you disagree with them.  Feminism and women holding the priesthood are tough subjects, but they aren`t going away.  Better to keep the conversation going, even if women aren`t ordained in the end.  My daughter is looking to be treated with more equality at Church.  Her words and issues, not necessarily mine.   

 

So, I like some of the direction of the Maxwell Institute and I even subscribe to their writings.  I like the idea of interacting with other religions and trying to find common ground.  I want conversations about the Book of Mormon that are scholarly, but that includes conversations about Higher Criticism in the David Bokovoy line of reasoning.  After Mitt Romney lost the election, at least in part because of evangelicals not turning out to vote for a Mormon, many on both sides of that argument realized that they are losing their voice in bringing about good in this Country.  Conservative religion divided fragments the voice of those involved in furthering the cause.  So I am glad to have MI, FAIR, BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone and the Interpreter.  I won`t go along with every article in every one of those journals, but I belong and read from the offerings from each of them.  I find the truth and insight within all of their pages. 

[The Nehor]

Still not resuming donations.

 

Bradford was a git in how he carried off his little coup. He may be a nice guy otherwise. He may have been instructed to do it. I don't know and don't much care. I used to contribute money and read and now I do not. I have occasionally looked over the names of the articles they are publishing now and most of them are "meh". Maybe they have an audience but I am clearly not part of it.

[sethpayne]

 Maybe they have an audience but I am clearly not part of it.

 

There is most certainly an audience and I think it is safe to say you are not part of it.  The MI, I would imagine, would like to see the Mormon Studies Review on library shelves at universities around the country.  If you don't enjoy reading  academic journals, Nehor, then I don't think the MSR is for you.

 

Perhaps that is the real issue.  Was it Dan who said that FARMS was meant for the "sister in Parowan?"  The MSR -- and BYU Studies for that matter -- are written for an academic audience and so all the fun jabs, references to people's sexuality, condemnation of other members faithfulness etc... are simply out of place in academic discourse.  So I can see why people who enjoyed the polemics in the old FARMS -- and hey, who can deny that there was some clever and funny writing in the old review -- would not enjoy the new MSR.  Bill made this clear when he stated that he received grief from his dept. Chair for publishing in the old venue.  The old review was not an academic journal.  The new MSR is.

 

But the great news is this.  By the time BYU decided that NAMIRS should publish for academics --because BYU is a university -- FairMormon had been in full swing for over a decade with thriving conferences.  Shields was still posting correspondence from anti-Mormons.  With the existence of FairMormon and Shields ... who needed the old-style FARMS?  Market saturation!

[stemelbow]

I'm a little confused that some refuse to acknowledge the way it happened in 2012 was poorly handled. that seems to be the point of the concerns and criticisms. Not sure why some are intent on defending the course taken because they love the outcome.

[jkwilliams]

I'm a little confused that some refuse to acknowledge the way it happened in 2012 was poorly handled. that seems to be the point of the concerns and criticisms. Not sure why some are intent on defending the course taken because they love the outcome.

Firing Dan by email when he was out of the country is quite unprofessional, and Bradford deserves criticism over the way he handled things.

[Kenngo1969]

Oh I'm aware of the history.

 

Was a promise made to original FARMS donors that they would forever remain independent?  No.  FARMS freely chose to join BYU.

My wife freely entered into our marriage.  Sure, I slap her around a bit, and she has to wear dark glasses and makeup in order to hide the damage, and she pastes on a smile, but, hey!  What does she want?!  That first year was great, wasn't it?  That should be enough, shouldn't it?  (No, I don't still beat my wife, for those of you who are wondering.)

Edited September 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Ares]

I'm watching this thread very closely...

 

[stemelbow]

Firing Dan by email when he was out of the country is quite unprofessional, and Bradford deserves criticism over the way he handled things.

Sure. And I, like others have pointed out, agree that donors could be justified in feeling betrayed. They didn't seem to be of much concern.

[Kenngo1969]

... If you don't enjoy reading  academic journals, Nehor, then I don't think the MSR is for you. ...

 

 

Seth, let me explain something you've apparently failed to grasp.  What you've done here is the equivalent of you telling me, for example, "I've never read the Harry Potter series," and me sniffing in response (with duly-upturned nose), "Hmph!  It's a pity you don't like books."  You can get down off of that intellectual high horse any time now!*  

 

*All tastes aren't the same, all books/authors aren't created equal, et cetera, and these principles apply even to (Gasp! )  Academic journals.  Unlike you, the rest of us haven't fallen into the trap of assuming that just because it's published in the academy, it is, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, worthwhile.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

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?

 

Another datum to consider is Steven E. Jones.  Dr. Jones was a BYU professor who claimed that the twin towers didn't fall because of the planes that crashed into them, but rather collapsed because of a controlled demolition that was triggered shorty after the plane crashes.  When BYU was hitting the national news as the employer of a conspiracy theorist, the University fired the professor.  Clearly, BYU doesn't want to have the reputation as a haven for cranks. 

 

One can infer that the brethren have given BYU the following priorities:

 

1- Create an environment where LDS standards are strictly enforced

2- Foster the testimonies of the students

3- Be a highly respected academic institution

 

With things like teaching evolution in science and "ancient Book of Mormon studies" there can be some tension between points 2 and 3.  However, it's clear that the Board of Trustees have decided that outside of religion classes, BYU will be associated with respectable mainstream academia. 

[jkwilliams]

Sure. And I, like others have pointed out, agree that donors could be justified in feeling betrayed. They didn't seem to be of much concern.

If donors were expecting classic-FARMS-style apologetics, of course they might feel somewhat betrayed. Unfortunately, once the money is donated, the recipient can do whatever they choose with it. Fortunately, there are organizations such as FairLDS and Mormon Interpreter to which these jilted donors can give their money. A family member of mine once gave several hundred dollars to a relative who said she was in dire financial straits. The recipient then used the money to pay for a trip to Chicago to hang out with friends. The donor was understandably upset, but in the end, the only thing she could do was to decide not to give money to the recipient again.

[Kenngo1969]

 

But the great news is this.  By the time BYU decided that NAMIRS should publish for academics --because BYU is a university -- FairMormon had been in full swing for over a decade with thriving conferences.  Shields was still posting correspondence from anti-Mormons.  With the existence of FairMormon and Shields ... who needed the old-style FARMS?  Market saturation!

That argument only works if FARMS had been a part of BYU from the get-go.  And as much nose upturning as you've done to the rest of us unsophisticated dolts on the thread, we're quite capable of determining our own tastes as consumers, thank you.  We don't need your help.

[jkwilliams]

Seth, let me explain something you've apparently failed to grasp.  What you've done here is the equivalent of you telling me, for example, "I've never read the Harry Potter series," and me sniffing in response (with duly-upturned nose), "Hmph!  It's a pity you don't like books."  You can get down off of that intellectual high horse any time now!*  

 

*All tastes aren't the same, all books/authors aren't created equal, et cetera, and these principles apply even to (Gasp! )  Academic journals.  Unlike you, the rest of us haven't fallen into the trap of assuming that just because it's published in the academy, it is, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, worthwhile.

Seems to me Seth was pretty clear: BYU has decided that the MI will focus on academic studies of Mormon history and scripture instead of apologetics. Those looking for a more popular and apologetic approach will need to look elsewhere. There's nothing inherently more valuable in academic publications than popular or apologetic publications; they just have different purposes and audiences, as Seth points out. From everything we know, BYU has decided that popular apologetics do not enhance the university's reputation, so they have gotten out of the business.

[stemelbow]

If donors were expecting classic-FARMS-style apologetics, of course they might feel somewhat betrayed. Unfortunately, once the money is donated, the recipient can do whatever they choose with it. Fortunately, there are organizations such as FairLDS and Mormon Interpreter to which these jilted donors can give their money. A family member of mine once gave several hundred dollars to a relative who said she was in dire financial straits. The recipient then used the money to pay for a trip to Chicago to hang out with friends. The donor was understandably upset, but in the end, the only thing she could do was to decide not to give money to the recipient again.

Yes. I agree. But I am saying he who takes money from someone under false pretenses is not being very nice. If a donor sustained group is taking money for a specific purpose and the group decides to change course, it'd only be appropriate for the group to give notice to and listen to their donors. Here I am saying this realizing the Church takes money from donors and gives no notice when directions change. Ah well...the Church gets a pass because she has too many interests, I guess.

[jkwilliams]

Yes. I agree. But I am saying he who takes money from someone under false pretenses is not being very nice. If a donor sustained group is taking money for a specific purpose and the group decides to change course, it'd only be appropriate for the group to give notice to and listen to their donors. Here I am saying this realizing the Church takes money from donors and gives no notice when directions change. Ah well...the Church gets a pass because she has too many interests, I guess.

Sure, donors have a right to be upset and take it up with the university (and it sounds like some have). I have no idea what promises, if any, were made to donors before and after the change of course, so it's all speculation from here.

[Calm]

Seems to me Seth was pretty clear: BYU has decided that the MI will focus on academic studies of Mormon history and scripture instead of apologetics. Those looking for a more popular and apologetic approach will need to look elsewhere. There's nothing inherently more valuable in academic publications than popular or apologetic publications; they just have different purposes and audiences, as Seth points out. From everything we know, BYU has decided that popular apologetics do not enhance the university's reputation, so they have gotten out of the business.

So why not just cut NAMI loose again if they decided it wasn't for them or at least the FARMS part? Instead of hamstringing and even gutting to a great extent the original organization? Why break promises? Why not just start up a new organization that wouldn't have had the baggage attached to it?

Edited September 9, 2015 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

So why not just cut NAMI loose again if they decided it wasn't for them or at least the FARMS part? Instead of hamstringing and even gutting to a great extent the original organization? Why break promises? Why not just start up a new organization that wouldn't have had the baggage attached to it?

Who knows? Perhaps they saw the remaining resources as a potential source of academic respectability.

[The Nehor]

There is most certainly an audience and I think it is safe to say you are not part of it.  The MI, I would imagine, would like to see the Mormon Studies Review on library shelves at universities around the country.  If you don't enjoy reading  academic journals, Nehor, then I don't think the MSR is for you.

 

Perhaps that is the real issue.  Was it Dan who said that FARMS was meant for the "sister in Parowan?"  The MSR -- and BYU Studies for that matter -- are written for an academic audience and so all the fun jabs, references to people's sexuality, condemnation of other members faithfulness etc... are simply out of place in academic discourse.  So I can see why people who enjoyed the polemics in the old FARMS -- and hey, who can deny that there was some clever and funny writing in the old review -- would not enjoy the new MSR.  Bill made this clear when he stated that he received grief from his dept. Chair for publishing in the old venue.  The old review was not an academic journal.  The new MSR is.

 

But the great news is this.  By the time BYU decided that NAMIRS should publish for academics --because BYU is a university -- FairMormon had been in full swing for over a decade with thriving conferences.  Shields was still posting correspondence from anti-Mormons.  With the existence of FairMormon and Shields ... who needed the old-style FARMS?  Market saturation!

I read academic articles in several fields in which I have an interest. The MSR is rather milquetoast and the articles I read in the past are like the worst of articles I often find in academic literary journals.

I should really try writing for them. Looks pretty easy.

[jkwilliams]

I read academic articles in several fields in which I have an interest. The MSR is rather milquetoast and the articles I read in the past are like the worst of articles I often find in academic literary journals.

I should really try writing for them. Looks pretty easy.

 

[CA Steve]

Seems to me Seth was pretty clear: BYU has decided that the MI will focus on academic studies of Mormon history and scripture instead of apologetics. Those looking for a more popular and apologetic approach will need to look elsewhere. There's nothing inherently more valuable in academic publications than popular or apologetic publications; they just have different purposes and audiences, as Seth points out. From everything we know, BYU has decided that popular apologetics do not enhance the university's reputation, so they have gotten out of the business.

I think a big difference is that while apologetics was being done at the MI it carried the weight of university backing. Isn't there a big difference between referencing a university source versus one from FARM's?

[Calm]

Who knows? Perhaps they saw the remaining resources as a potential source of academic respectability.

Of course they did. The question is really if it was ethical to use resources that had been gathered for one purpose and apply them to another purpose after promising when those resources were given to BYU that they would be used for the original purpose.

Not sitting down and discussing the change of direction with those who gave those resources---including those who continued to do so up till the time they received an email their content contributions would no longer be needed (with the exception of fundraising iirc)---with that understanding of mission commitment before going ahead with one's intent to change things seems to me to be essentially breaking a contract while trying to pretend one wasn't.

Just because one has a worthwhile ethical goal doesn't mean the process to achieve it was morally correct.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Calm