Claims That The Maxwell Institute No Longer Does Ancient Studies And The Bom Are False

[cinepro]

Yes but where does this supposedly happy situation leave people like me who want the Maxwell Institute to get hit by a tornado, burn down, fall over, and sink into a swamp and then have a tribe of friendly beavers come by and salt the ground to keep anything from ever being built there again?

Am I just to be left out in the cold? Is that fair?

 

Remarkably similar to what happened to the Nauvoo Temple, so who knows?

[juliann]

Yes but where does this supposedly happy situation leave people like me who want the Maxwell Institute to get hit by a tornado, burn down, fall over, and sink into a swamp and then have a tribe of friendly beavers come by and salt the ground to keep anything from ever being built there again?

 

Ah come on, we went through this with MMM. You just dress up as beavers and then blame them.

[readstoomuch]

Blair has done a good job in trying to answer the criticisms the best he could.  He has certainly given it more airing that I have seen previously.  Since he didn`t do the things that many are mad about, I don`t think I will beat him up any more.  

[The Nehor]

I

Ah come on, we went through this with MMM. You just dress up as beavers and then blame them.

I only have a woodchuck costume.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair has done a good job in trying to answer the criticisms the best he could.  He has certainly given it more airing that I have seen previously.  Since he didn't do the things that many are mad about, I don`t think I will beat him up any more.  

 

Well thanks. I hope you'll take a minute to catch up on what the Institute is up to. We have an active Facebook page, Twitter feed, and blog. 

Edited September 14, 2015 by LifeOnaPlate

[PeterPear]

With the past brought up -again- about the MI and who should be or should have been in control, etc, et al, ad infinitum; it's obvious that despite the old F.AR.M.S./MI theory trying to prove that a 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica is THE land of promise, it is not actually true.

The true Land of Promise is the MI.

But being merely an out-of-state-of-Utah internet observer of the above past and not having a dog in the fight, I truely will miss the Old F.A.R.M.S./MI form of apologetics, such as:

Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about except when he spoke of BofM geography-and he learned of it from a travel book by JLStephens

The Hill Cumorah is merely a pile of gravel which could never have a cave because the true Hill is in Central America

We must question the 7-14 men who wrote in their journals or memoirs about Zelph but not the name of the Brother of Jared which was written down by one man in his journal when the Prophet blessed and named his infant son

Asherah is one cool chick and reflecting on her helped Lehi and Nephi understand the vision of the mother of the Lord

Internal squabbling over whether the Usamancintas river or the Grijalva river is the true river Sidon

Rod Meldrum is the devil and doesn't know what he's talking about just like Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about

The Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, Lamanites didn't know true north because the Isthmus of Teuantepec runs east-west

Moroni's soldier scalped a Nephite dissenter with a macuahuitl because steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism

Prophets are only Prophets when they are only acting as such and the Prophet Joseph Smith wasn't a Prophet when he spoke of things related to BofM geography for North America, such as the plains of the Nephites

We must discount the stories of seeing the Hill Cumorah (New York) open up and reveal records upon records as related by Brigham Young because he heard it second-hand from Oliver Cowdery who obviously must have seen a vision of the true Hill in Central America

And last and not least, the Prophet Moroni walked all the way to New York to deposit the records in a Non-descript Hill criticized for its efforts in the Restoration of the Gospel, just so a young boy of 14 didn't have to walk all the way to Central America.

Yes, I will truely miss the Old F.A.R.M.S. and their humor sent out to the world as apologetics for the Faithful.

Will the new MI criticize in like manner the early Leaders of our Church and pick apart Church History and condemn all to insanity when it disagrees with a Mesoamerica setting?

[The Nehor]

With the past brought up -again- about the MI and who should be or should have been in control, etc, et al, ad infinitum; it's obvious that despite the old F.AR.M.S./MI theory trying to prove that a 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica is THE land of promise, it is not actually true.

The true Land of Promise is the MI.

But being merely an out-of-state-of-Utah internet observer of the above past and not having a dog in the fight, I truely will miss the Old F.A.R.M.S./MI form of apologetics, such as:

Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about except when he spoke of BofM geography-and he learned of it from a travel book by JLStephens

The Hill Cumorah is merely a pile of gravel which could never have a cave because the true Hill is in Central America

We must question the 7-14 men who wrote in their journals or memoirs about Zelph but not the name of the Brother of Jared which was written down by one man in his journal when the Prophet blessed and named his infant son

Asherah is one cool chick and reflecting on her helped Lehi and Nephi understand the vision of the mother of the Lord

Internal squabbling over whether the Usamancintas river or the Grijalva river is the true river Sidon

Rod Meldrum is the devil and doesn't know what he's talking about just like Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about

The Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, Lamanites didn't know true north because the Isthmus of Teuantepec runs east-west

Moroni's soldier scalped a Nephite dissenter with a macuahuitl because steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism

Prophets are only Prophets when they are only acting as such and the Prophet Joseph Smith wasn't a Prophet when he spoke of things related to BofM geography for North America, such as the plains of the Nephites

We must discount the stories of seeing the Hill Cumorah (New York) open up and reveal records upon records as related by Brigham Young because he heard it second-hand from Oliver Cowdery who obviously must have seen a vision of the true Hill in Central America

And last and not least, the Prophet Moroni walked all the way to New York to deposit the records in a Non-descript Hill criticized for its efforts in the Restoration of the Gospel, just so a young boy of 14 didn't have to walk all the way to Central America.

Yes, I will truely miss the Old F.A.R.M.S. and their humor sent out to the world as apologetics for the Faithful.

Will the new MI criticize in like manner the early Leaders of our Church and pick apart Church History and condemn all to insanity when it disagrees with a Mesoamerica setting?

 

Hi Meldrum.

 

Long time no see.

[Robert F. Smith]

Blair has done a good job in trying to answer the criticisms the best he could.  He has certainly given it more airing that I have seen previously.  Since he didn`t do the things that many are mad about, I don`t think I will beat him up any more.  

Blair is a great guy in every respect.  It would be wonderful if he could be the next boss at the Maxwell Institute.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[LifeOnaPlate]

Kinda sounds like that dude has a dog in the fight.

[Robert F. Smith]

Kinda sounds like that dude has a dog in the fight.

Don't worry, Blair, no one ever pays a lick of attention to my outlandish suggestions -- which is their loss, and your gain -- so you won't have to be the Big Dog any time soon.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Haha I meant that Pear character!

As for me, I love what I'm doing right now and I'm very optimistic about a new director being selected as Jerry retires.

[Scott Lloyd]

Welcome back, Scott. Can you check my earlier response?.

I thank you for your response, Blair.

I have no rejoinder to offer, and I choose not to continue the conversation, either here or elsewhere. I ask that you respect that choice.

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard, I can understand why it is troubling to you. Many fans of Dan were troubled and some still are. I can also understand why the university expected the Institute to decline public comment on the circumstances. I think it's obvious to most reasonable people that in such a divided situation, both parties could reasonably believe different things about why it happened. Both sides will be likely to depict things as favorably as possible to their own side. I suppose I can say that, although the exact timing and circumstances don't seem ideal, the decision wasn't made lightly and the university fully supports the Maxwell Institute. As Dr. Bradford retires in the next little while I hope people will learn to overlook perceived problems and pay attention instead to what the Institute is actually producing now. The past two years have been the most productive of the Institute's history in several categories. There's a lot of very good things people can benefit from if they're willing to try.

One doesn't have to be a "Fan of Dan" to find this episode disappointing, even moreso because of the ensuing silence. A number of my friends and relatives who didn't know Dan or the Institute are saddened by this event. It's such a disturbing story that the truth should be told and let the chips fall where they will regardless of policies. I appreciate the position you are in and that you have the courage to defend it here, but this sounds like justifying questionable means because the ends were good. It's obvious the university supports the Institute or this wouldn't have happened, but does it also support the manner in which it was changed? Or was this the way it was designed to happen? We have read here about the abuses of the Wilkinson era.....he was President during my years there. Now I have to wonder about this BYU era. Kind of takes the shine off the penny. Great football program. I'm having my doubts about the current White and Blue. But the Church is still true.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Blair has done a good job in trying to answer the criticisms the best he could.  He has certainly given it more airing that I have seen previously.  Since he didn`t do the things that many are mad about, I don`t think I will beat him up any more.  

So, why come and

pick off the scab?

[LifeOnaPlate]

One doesn't have to be a "Fan of Dan" to find this episode disappointing, even moreso because of the ensuing silence. A number of my friends and relatives who didn't know Dan or the Institute are saddened by this event. It's such a disturbing story that the truth should be told and let the chips fall where they will regardless of policies. I appreciate the position you are in and that you have the courage to defend it here, but this sounds like justifying questionable means because the ends were good. It's obvious the university supports the Institute or this wouldn't have happened, but does it also support the manner in which it was changed? Or was this the way it was designed to happen? We have read here about the abuses of the Wilkinson era.....he was President during my years there. Now I have to wonder about this BYU era. Kind of takes the shine off the penny. Great football program. I'm having my doubts about the current White and Blue. But the Church is still true.

Bernard, thanks for the detailed reply. I think it's reasonable for people to assume that since only one party to the conflict has publicly given their side of things that people therefore only know one side. Since Dan has been party to spreading inaccurate information about the Institute (in this case via his friend Bill Hamblin), reasonable people might take that into account when they consider other claims about the Institute.

As for picking off the scab (if that was directed to me), I'm here primarily to clear up misconceptions about what the Institute is currently doing. As I've argued, it is not true that the Institute is no longer looking at the BoM as an ancient text. I've also pointed to some of the other excellent (in my biased opinion) work that the Institute has produced over the past few years. I've offered review copies of work to several people but no one who has concerns has taken me up on it. What have you read from the Institute in the past three years? Would you be interested in reviewing something?

Please forgive typos. Using phone.

Edited September 16, 2015 by LifeOnaPlate

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard, thanks for the detailed reply. I think it's reasonable for people to assume that since only one party to the conflict has publicly given their side of things that people therefore only know one side. Since Dan has been party to spreading inaccurate information about the Institute (in this case via his friend Bill Hamblin), reasonable people might take that into account when they consider other claims about the Institute.

As for picking off the scab (if that was directed to me), I'm here primarily to clear up misconceptions about what the Institute is currently doing. As I've argued, it is not true that the Institute is no longer looking at the BoM as an ancient text. I've also pointed to some of the other excellent (in my biased opinion) work that the Institute has produced over the past few years. I've offered review copies of work to several people but no one who has concerns has taken me up on it. What have you read from the Institute in the past three years? Would you be interested in reviewing something?

Please forgive typos. Using phone.

This is the first I have heard that Dan has spread misinformation through Bill Hamblin. What would that misinformation be?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

Sheesh the Institute is just following the methods employed by the Church over the years. Pretend like the failures of the past never were and yet ask people to get over it and come and see the good they do. I guess there's something to that, but it doesn't really make sense, in this case.

Why are they publishing apologetic material if the whole point behind the purge was to shed itself of apologetics? That's a little odd because as I understand it the "old guard" was more than willing to share apologetic and academic. It seems like people just started throwing each other into categories and battling based on those categories. Now we have Blair asking everyone to not see categories of people. Hey I'm all for that. But what happened here? Remaining silent, I can't see as all that helpful particularly when someone speaking in defense from inside the institute is claiming the other side is lying. Honestly, the institute needs to learn to address what it did, or the hurt they caused remains. Why blame everyone else for the problems they caused? Seems stupid.

"hey, we're the same as we were. some of the same people are here. Don't pay any attention to those others we ousted because they're just lying anyway. But let's all be nice and get along and not try and shove people into categories and attack them."

What? The drama causers complaining about the drama they caused? ugh...

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is the first I have heard that Dan has spread misinformation through Bill Hamblin. What would that misinformation be?

 

The basic pattern goes like this: Bill or someone else posts some bit of selective or misinterpreted information on a blog with a discussion about how it signals the Institute has lost its way, abandoned the faith or apologetics or Book of Mormon studies in an ancient setting or what have you. These posts have never been accurate, of course. Then other people post that link on their Facebook walls and blogs, usually saying something like "I don't necessarily agree with everything my friend Bill or whoever says, but hey, it's really interesting and telling, isn't it?"

 

Someone once said that lies and rumors can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on. This thread was my response to the latest inaccurate information. Now that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies vol. 24 has been published, it's clear that the Willes Center (formerly FARMS) at the Maxwell Institute is indeed continuing to study and assess the BoM as an ancient text, as well as expanding the scholarly scope to include theological, literary, and reception history studies. (This was also clear before Bill posted his blog post, looking at the last issue of JBMS, as well as our latest published book Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced the Prophet Joseph Smith). 

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sheesh the Institute is just following the methods employed by the Church over the years. Pretend like the failures of the past never were and yet ask people to get over it and come and see the good they do. I guess there's something to that, but it doesn't really make sense, in this case.

It's not uncommon for churches, businesses, and other entities to not publicly distribute all the details of personnel and other decisions. Families don't do it, individuals don't do it. In some cases being discrete is actually in the best interest of both parties.

Why are they publishing apologetic material if the whole point behind the purge was to shed itself of apologetics? That's a little odd because as I understand it the "old guard" was more than willing to share apologetic and academic. It seems like people just started throwing each other into categories and battling based on those categories. Now we have Blair asking everyone to not see categories of people. Hey I'm all for that.

When categorization obscures the most important things (the work itself) then I think it's not useful and should be set aside. I can't control the labels people use, but I can point out the function the labels are serving and invite people to look at things a different way to get the discussion back on track. The word "apologetics" is a good example of this. It's a word most members of the church are unfamiliar with. It's a word that some people have taken up as a title. It's a word that gets used as often in identity politics as anything else. This is one of the reasons you see FairMormon re-branding with a new name. There's no question that various publications at the Maxwell Institute can serve "apologetic" purposes in the sense of defending or bolstering various truth claims, or creating a reasonable climate in which belief may flourish as the old saying goes. I laid that out earlier in the thread here. We don't feel the need to explicitly or frequently employ the term "apologetics" in order to accomplish the goal of increasing faith through topflight scholarship.

But what happened here? Remaining silent, I can't see as all that helpful particularly when someone speaking in defense from inside the institute is claiming the other side is lying. Honestly, the institute needs to learn to address what it did, or the hurt they caused remains. Why blame everyone else for the problems they caused? Seems stupid.

I understand that it doesn't make sense to you. People in that situation have a choice they can make. They can actually read what the Institute is producing (or listen to it in the case of the MIPodcast) and evaluate it, or they can allow personnel changes to overshadow the actual work. By and large, MI is seeing a lot of very positive feedback from people who've enjoyed what's being produced. MI receives some good scholarly criticism as well, which is also encouraged and appreciated. The Institute is in this for the scholarship above all.

"hey, we're the same as we were. some of the same people are here. Don't pay any attention to those others we ousted because they're just lying anyway. But let's all be nice and get along and not try and shove people into categories and attack them."

What? The drama causers complaining about the drama they caused? ugh...

I don't think MI is the exact same as it was. There's been concerted efforts to improve the overall tone and approach to scholarship, to other church members, even to critics. It's quite possible to deeply disagree with someone without being sarcastic, disagreeable, or trying to display wit at someone's expense. That's the goal and I believe the Institute continues to improve there. The idea is that the work MI produces, even responses to criticisms, needs to embody the spirit of the gospel of Christ which it seeks to defend. That includes the traits of honesty, meekness, humility, and charity. MI has also raised the bar in terms of our peer review process, new boards have been formed to oversee MI periodicals which have been reformatted and redesigned, the book publishing program is more robust than it has been in years (MI published more books last year than the previous decade combined, or near to it IIRC) with several new book series and some best-selling titles. MI also provides a free professional podcast, frequent blog posts, more private colloquiums with a variety of scholars and more lectures than have gone in for years. Not to mention making our materials more widely and freely available than before and even expanding the contents of our archive online. Not to mention all the other stuff MI is doing. So as I pointed out earlier, our Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts are just as important to us as the Willes Center or <i>Mormon Studies Review</i>.

Anyone who thinks the MI is the same as it was probably wasn't very familiar with how it was, or with how it is now. Conversely, some people have exaggerated the differences, arguing that the Institute has become a secular place where faith is disallowed. In reality, the Institute produces different work for various audiences, academic, devotional, and in-between. It's a spectrum, not an either/or. Solid scholarship can be faithful scholarship when it's produced with rigor and care, even if it doesn't touch directly on the faith claims of Latter-day Saints.

[stemelbow]

It's not uncommon for churches, businesses, and other entities to not publicly distribute all the details of personnel and other decisions. Families don't do it, individuals don't do it. In some cases being discrete is actually in the best interest of both parties.

No one is asking the MI to do any such thing. Acknowledging it was inappropriate and unprofessional to, for instance, notify Dan while he was on vacation, via email, after assuring him otherwise before he left is simply ridiculous. This is not a case of following protocol for professionalism. This is acknowledging a failure in the professionalism you are claiming to want to ascribe to. Seems to be a rather simple thing to me.

When categorization obscures the most important things (the work itself) then I think it's not useful and should be set aside.

That's exactly what I'm getting at.

I can't control the labels people use, but I can point out the function the labels are serving and invite people to look at things a different way to get the discussion back on track. The word "apologetics" is a good example of this. It's a word most members of the church are unfamiliar with. It's a word that some people have taken up as a title. It's a word that gets used as often in identity politics as anything else. This is one of the reasons you see FairMormon re-branding with a new name. There's no question that various publications at the Maxwell Institute can serve "apologetic" purposes in the sense of defending or bolstering various truth claims, or creating a reasonable climate in which belief may flourish as the old saying goes. I laid that out earlier in the thread here. We don't feel the need to explicitly or frequently employ the term "apologetics" in order to accomplish the goal of increasing faith through topflight scholarship.

All this does is illicit questions that you won't answer.

I understand that it doesn't make sense to you. People in that situation have a choice they can make. They can actually read what the Institute is producing (or listen to it in the case of the MIPodcast) and evaluate it, or they can allow personnel changes to overshadow the actual work. By and large, MI is seeing a lot of very positive feedback from people who've enjoyed what's being produced. MI receives some good scholarly criticism as well, which is also encouraged and appreciated. The Institute is in this for the scholarship above all.

That'd be fine if it weren't so drama-involved.

I don't think MI is the exact same as it was. There's been concerted efforts to improve the overall tone and approach to scholarship, to other church members, even to critics. It's quite possible to deeply disagree with someone without being sarcastic, disagreeable, or trying to display wit at someone's expense. That's the goal and I believe the Institute continues to improve there. The idea is that the work MI produces, even responses to criticisms, needs to embody the spirit of the gospel of Christ which it seeks to defend. That includes the traits of honesty, meekness, humility, and charity.

My goodness those traits are most apparent when fiascos are admitted to and mistakes are apologized for. It's like someone claiming humility, while boasting about his/her own strengths. I mean there might be a flickr of truth to it, but it just sounds ridiculous.

MI has also raised the bar in terms of our peer review process, new boards have been formed to oversee MI periodicals which have been reformatted and redesigned, the book publishing program is more robust than it has been in years (MI published more books last year than the previous decade combined, or near to it IIRC) with several new book series and some best-selling titles. MI also provides a free professional podcast, frequent blog posts, more private colloquiums with a variety of scholars and more lectures than have gone in for years. Not to mention making our materials more widely and freely available than before and even expanding the contents of our archive online. Not to mention all the other stuff MI is doing. So as I pointed out earlier, our Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts are just as important to us as the Willes Center or <i>Mormon Studies Review</i>.

Anyone who thinks the MI is the same as it was probably wasn't very familiar with how it was, or with how it is now. Conversely, some people have exaggerated the differences, arguing that the Institute has become a secular place where faith is disallowed. In reality, the Institute produces different work for various audiences, academic, devotional, and in-between. It's a spectrum, not an either/or. Solid scholarship can be faithful scholarship when it's produced with rigor and care, even if it doesn't touch directly on the faith claims of Latter-day Saints.

I wouldn't argue with the direction of the MI. I think many of the things you mention and stand for are awesome. I wouldn't argue the MI is useless, pointless or puts out crappy junk. Those have nothing to do with the points I've raised.

[BHodges]

No one is asking the MI to do any such thing. Acknowledging it was inappropriate and unprofessional to, for instance, notify Dan while he was on vacation, via email, after assuring him otherwise before he left is simply ridiculous. This is not a case of following protocol for professionalism. This is acknowledging a failure in the professionalism you are claiming to want to ascribe to. Seems to be a rather simple thing to me.

This is also where nuances, perspectives, and stories diverge, though. The optics as described by one party do look bad, no question. The very circumstances are contested. The university decided to leave it at that. If the university looks bad for not trying to get down in the mud about it, that's simply something they've chosen to live with. One side of the story is out there. People can believe it or not.

All this does is illicit questions that you won't answer.

I think it's important to clarify misconceptions and misinformation about what the Institute is doing today. That's my primary intention here, to correct the record. It usually does elicit questions that I won't answer, which helps explain why I haven't been here every time (and there have been plenty of times) someone spreads misinformation about the Institute. When I plainly state what I will and won't speak to, that lets people know what info they can expect. As we've seen throughout the thread, that allows some people to move on, to actually look into the scholarship being produced. So when others bring up the past I relate as much as I can in my position. That isn't enough for some people and it will never be enough for some people, and I understand that. I recognize it's all I can do.

That'd be fine if it weren't so drama-involved.

Trust me, I'd love to keep the drama as minimal as possible, and that goes for everyone, not just the Institute. I'm glad to see Dan,for instance, has moved on and is working with Interpreter. Yeah, he occasionally takes a moment to take a swipe at us, but perhaps eventually that will end.

My goodness those traits are most apparent when fiascos are admitted to and mistakes are apologized for. It's like someone claiming humility, while boasting about his/her own strengths. I mean there might be a flickr of truth to it, but it just sounds ridiculous.

Corporate/public communications has been facing this difficulty for at least a few decades. It really is something I spend time thinking about.

I wouldn't argue with the direction of the MI. I think many of the things you mention and stand for are awesome. I wouldn't argue the MI is useless, pointless or puts out crappy junk. Those have nothing to do with the points I've raised.

So maybe we can get it back on topic, the topic of the thread as I originally wrote it, which was to talk about what the Institute is doing now. As it turns out, some of the people who were most vocal with their complaints don't actually know what the Institute has been doing for the past 3 years give or take. I realize people are busy and there's a lot of stuff out there calling for attention. But I figure if I can clear up misconceptions among some of the people who talk the most about them, we might start to see these types of conversations dry up.

I'm not just blowing smoke when I say I appreciate you patiently reading through the thread and being candid with me.

[BHodges]

PS stemelbow- I recall your screen name from when I used to post here, but I don't remember if I ever knew your identity IRL or not, or if we ever had conversations. Forgive my memory slippage.

[stemelbow]

This is also where nuances, perspectives, and stories diverge, though. The optics as described by one party do look bad, no question. The very circumstances are contested. The university decided to leave it at that. If the university looks bad for not trying to get down in the mud about it, that's simply something they've chosen to live with. One side of the story is out there. People can believe it or not.

Well then expect some backlash. That you can produce good things will fall on deaf ears if the story logically lays out as explained by another and you suggest the story presented was not true, but are unwilling to correct what happened.

I think it's important to clarify misconceptions and misinformation about what the Institute is doing today. That's my primary intention here, to correct the record. It usually does elicit questions that I won't answer, which helps explain why I haven't been here every time (and there have been plenty of times) someone spreads misinformation about the Institute. When I plainly state what I will and won't speak to, that lets people know what info they can expect. As we've seen throughout the thread, that allows some people to move on, to actually look into the scholarship being produced. So when others bring up the past I relate as much as I can in my position. That isn't enough for some people and it will never be enough for some people, and I understand that. I recognize it's all I can do.

Odd that so much of what you produce will be centered on the past but when it comes to this the past is off limits.

Trust me, I'd love to keep the drama as minimal as possible, and that goes for everyone, not just the Institute. I'm glad to see Dan,for instance, has moved on and is working with Interpreter. Yeah, he occasionally takes a moment to take a swipe at us, but perhaps eventually that will end.

It would have already ended if there was some effort to resolve the issues.

Corporate/public communications has been facing this difficulty for at least a few decades. It really is something I spend time thinking about.

Good. Thanks.

So maybe we can get it back on topic, the topic of the thread as I originally wrote it, which was to talk about what the Institute is doing now. As it turns out, some of the people who were most vocal with their complaints don't actually know what the Institute has been doing for the past 3 years give or take. I realize people are busy and there's a lot of stuff out there calling for attention. But I figure if I can clear up misconceptions among some of the people who talk the most about them, we might start to see these types of conversations dry up.

of course they'd have been dried up for a while if there was some effort to mend fences and clear up what had happened. That's a shame. Surely, at some point, people forget and move on.

I'm not just blowing smoke when I say I appreciate you patiently reading through the thread and being candid with me.

good. And I hope you realize I'm grateful to you for your participation here. I'm glad this was cleared up.

[stemelbow]

PS stemelbow- I recall your screen name from when I used to post here, but I don't remember if I ever knew your identity IRL or not, or if we ever had conversations. Forgive my memory slippage.

I do believe I met you once but it was long ago and you wouldn't have a clue who I am. B'lieve me. I ain't nothing.

[The Nehor]

I don't think MI is the exact same as it was. There's been concerted efforts to improve the overall tone and approach to scholarship, to other church members, even to critics. It's quite possible to deeply disagree with someone without being sarcastic, disagreeable, or trying to display wit at someone's expense.

 

Of course it is possible to do that but why would you want to?