A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[Daniel Peterson]

clarkgoble:  "I'd say both were deeply problematic."

Really?

I confess that I'm very surprised.

And that, in that light, I probably can't satisfy you on this subject.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is a belief in intelligent design anti-science?  Doesn't everyone who believes in God (and believes that He is the reason that this world and everything on it exists) believe in intelligent design?

Sorry - you'd replied before I'd finished writing. So you have an erroneous first line. (I'd initially accidentally typed problematic - sorry I was up all night with a sick baby) 

But yeah, I think that ultimately pushing Intelligent Design is deeply problematic scientifically. The premise of Intelligent Design is that you can't have emergent complexity but require divine miracles because such things are too improbable. We have to distinguish between Intelligent Design which is God playing tricks with probabilities and directed design, which is just God intervening while acknowledging the theory of evolution as discovered.

16 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

clarkgoble:  "I'd say both were deeply problematic."

Really?

I confess that I'm very surprised.

And that, in that light, I probably can't satisfy you on this subject.

Dang. I need to be more careful not to hit "save" after my initial draft. Too many typos which is problematic in posts that are getting lots of traffic. That's not what I meant to type. I am sometimes like the fabled monkeys at the typewriter. 

No, both of the articles you linked to are excellent. My apologies. Normally I have a couple of minutes to revise here. I hit save after first draft because otherwise the site sometimes loses what I type. So I do a quick draft, save, then revise. Typically articles aren't viewed for a while so I can get away with that. Today clearly that's not the case.

I linked to the ones I found problematic and mentioned a few others I found excellent you'd published. My apologies again for the confusion over how I was editing. It's a rather common method here but I probably should be more careful in the future.

Edited January 2, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Greg is the writer of the article, he should know how and why he wrote it.  And everything he said matches how he and others explained it at the time.  Anything he says that contradicts Lou I would go with what Greg says.  Lou would probably say the same thing.

Lou has talked about this a lot over the years.  I can see him getting timing of who he talked to mixed up or maybe someone sharing info with him was ambiguous and Lou assumed the wrong thing as fact.  We all do those kinds of things.

Yes, but Lou was so specific on how E. Packer and other G.A.'s were involved with the piece on Dehlin that a denial raises more questions. Why would Lou say such things? Was he just so angry, still, after all these years, that he would make up a story involving E. Packer in order to get back at Mr. Hodges for something that Mr. Hodges didn't do?  Why was he so specific and why is he backing off the story now? Why is it so important to deny G.A. involvement in defending the faith? It seems to me that the brethren wouldn't mind owning this, but they always like layers in between, like when the church convinced "donors" to buy Hoffman's forgeries then "donate" the forgeries to the church.

Do you think Mr. Midgley will eventually explain his outburst, if it isn't true?

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just pointing out what I see as a double standard you have set....

Brother Peterson deserved the same consideration, IMO.

how do I have a double standard?  I'm just pointing out that one would think if Holland was really wanting to see a complete change of course with the MI he'd sit with those in charge and tell them directly to change.  I've not commented on Peterson getting told via email, at least not for a few years and I think I've come down on the side of saying it sounded quite an inappropriate way of handling it on the part of MI.  

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

how do I have a double standard?  I'm just pointing out that one would think if Holland was really wanting to see a complete change of course with the MI he'd sit with those in charge and tell them directly to change.  I've not commented on Peterson getting told via email, at least not for a few years and I think I've come down on the side of saying it sounded quite an inappropriate way of handling it on the part of MI.  

It seems undeniable that how Dan's exit was handled was egregious and indefensible. Even if some didn't like the way he was handling editing and paper selection that's just an inexcusable way to deal with it. I can completely understand why some would call in a coup just based upon that. 

Ideally a lot of this could just be handled, as you mention, by an apostle coming down and dealing with it in private in personal meetings. Again, I've no inside knowledge, so that could have happened for all I know.

Again though I wish we'd put these things behind us and focus primarily on defending the kingdom through apologetics.

[BHodges]

28 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

As to the "FARMS Review" and science (particularly, it seems, evolution), we only published one (brief) article directly addressing that topic.  It was a book review, entitled "Lamarck, Giraffes, and the Sermon on the Mount":

 https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=13

We had another article on the subject edited and fully ready to go in the issue of the "FARMS Review" that was suppressed by the new Maxwell Institute regime in 2012.  It ultimately appeared in "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture" under the title "'Endless Forms Most Beautiful': The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works":

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

People are free to read those two articles for themselves and determine whether we were anti-scientific.

The idea that the FARMS Review has been somewhat anti-evolution might stem in part from your editor's introduction to a 1996 volume, "Doubting the Doubters." There you talk about being somewhat agnostic about evolution, discuss some of the problematic ramifications some people draw from the theory, and express interest in newer research that has come to be known as "Intelligent Design." 

But your agnosticism hasn't stopped you from publishing under your editorship articles in favor of compatibility between evolution and Latter-day Saint theology, more than the one you recall. You are forgetting the late Frank Salisbury's several contributions to FR, reviewing books which touch on evolution, in 2006: 

The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements

Creation by Evolution?

2006 was evidently a hot year for the topic. FR also published "Mormonism and Intelligent Design," by Richard Sherlock," and "Science vs. Mormonism: The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading," by Robert R. Bennett. In 2008 James L. Farmer reviewed Salisbury's own book on Mormonism and evolution in "The Clockmaker Returns." Also in 2008 you published "Of Science, Scripture, and Surprise," by Duane Boyce.

Perhaps most notable are other instances in which evolutionary theory has been used to defend against particular criticisms or to answer controversies like DNA and the Book of Mormon. An entire volume addressing the topic, mostly selections from FR IIRC, was published in 2008. And Greg Smith's rebuttal of Rod Meldrum's Book of Mormon geography theories includes a section on the misuse of DNA evidence, etc. 

There are probably more that I'm not thinking of, but I think the idea that FR was negative toward evolutionary biology like stems from your editor's introduction (which is more nuanced than mere dismissal) and Richard Sherlock's positive appraisal of intelligent design research which many scientists—including theistic and Christian scientists—find problematic. 

 

 

[pogi]

On 12/31/2018 at 4:17 PM, Calm said:

Peterson was one of the founders/original members of the private organization FARMS (this is from memory, others probably remember better than I do; edit:  FARMS was formed in 79 and Dan got his doctorate in 1990 so it just seems like he was there from the beginning, I guess, lol; I have no doubt confused it with the origin of FAIR but Dan got his BA at BYU in 77, so possible) and iirc was the director or chairman of it when asked to join BYU by Pres. Hinckley.  He had been Chairman of the Board as well as editor of the Review for over 20 years.

My understanding was certain assurances that FARMS mission would not be interfered with were given at the time it became part of NAMI though it may have been when it joined BYU.

It is not the usual professor being given an extra responsibility and then being moved when different directors came in.  

Plus he was the founder of the METI project.

And it was never just about the dismissal of Dan as editor:

"Dan Peterson was the only scholar of the original FARMS Board who was left as a “director” of the Institute; with his dismissal classic-FARMS is gone.  There is not a single voice left in the leadership of the Institute to represent the original goals of classic-FARMS.  This is why Dan’s dismissal and marginalization is seen as such a massive betrayal.  It is the removal of the last vestige of classic-FARMS.  The pretense of the MI as the heir of FARMS can no longer be maintained."

http://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/

Thanks for the info.

From a purely business perspective, it just seems like poor business management.

If a business was effectively taken over and all the founders ousted or exited on their own accord, then they have no one to blame but themselves, it seems.  They had control at one point - then they made themselves too vulnerable and lost it. It may have been dirty, it may have felt like betrayal, but business owners/founders need to have the wisdom and foresight to protect against such take-overs. 

[The Nehor]

Hey DCP, good to hear from you again. I, at least, have missed you on the boards though I definitely understand why you mostly withdrew.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we ought to consider that the things MIdgley disclosed may have in fact had a degree of truth to them, and perhaps he just doesn't have the same filter as others who know they are not supposed to disclose certain things publicly.  

Very well could be.  I won't deny that possibility.  I might be a little more skeptical at such a notion based on what Midgley said than you, though.  I am surprised at the details he rattles off only to find himself accepting Greg Smith's correction.  My reaction was he's losing it, but that too is hard to maintain considering the details he provides. 

[BHodges]

32 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

I write publicly on this subject solely to ensure that false stories and misleading allegations don't remain publicly uncorrected.

Right, but you'll be doing that until the end of time. You spent some of your holiday break on it, which must be frustrating. I think in the age of Google it's reasonable enough to respond to something and let it stand for reasonable people to easily discover. Your blog's SEO is quite good thanks to the fiscal motivations of the folks at Patheos. And anyone in the future who wishes to discuss the events responsibly already have plenty of your responses to refer to. By repeatedly responding to criticism you've already responded to you're more likely, IMO, to fuel the "Barbara Streisand effect" (which I invoke without an implication as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of your version of events). Your critics seem to genuinely enjoy seeing you get ruffled about it, making them more likely to include the claim in future discussions. 

I understand the impulse, honestly. After all, for the past six years a few individuals have spent time insinuating—and sometimes openly claiming (and at other times standing quietly by holding cloaks in silent assent while others accuse)—that church leaders are distressed about the Maxwell Institute, or that they have "given up on it," or that it is "apostate" or "adrift" or "on the wrong course," etc. Although the Institute, like any other entity, is imperfect, I personally know such views are simply untrue, unfair, and at times quite hurtful. Some people might take satisfaction in knowing that hurt has resulted. Some people might claim some sort of insider info to back up such claims. But such gossip is inaccurate. The Institute is still here, still evolving, and still striving as best it can to follow the direction outlined and approved by its current director in direct consultation with BYU administration up through the Board of Trustees. When people bring the gossip to my attention I usually ignore it. I occasionally respond. But I think the majority of people out there aren't confused about the Institute. They're enjoying what it has to offer. 

[BHodges]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've no comments on the rest of the issues. I know nothing about it and kind of just wish people would let the conflict go. I'm glad The Interpreter is there although, as with FARMS, some articles I wish weren't published. Likewise I'm glad the Maxwell Institute is there, although as I've said I worry about the lack of engagement and criticism of certain secular interpretations of Mormon history. And of course there's things there that I wish weren't published too. While I think it silly to say MI is dominated by secularism I also think secularism is starting to be a bit of a problem there.

I trust you're aware that the Mormon Studies Review—which was billed to be addressed primarily to the academy and not to Latter-day Saints in particular—has now been acquired by the University of Illinois Press and is no longer an Institute publication. It was a difficult experiment in some ways, seeking to critically engage with Mormon studies including the voices of LDSaint and non-LDSaint alike. In the end it was decided by all parties that it was better suited elsewhere. But MSR was never the primary reason for the Institute's existence (although pre-2013 some people might disagree). The primary focus (as the mission statement says) is on gathering and nurturing disciple-scholars, providing an environment where professionals and some students can hone their disciple-scholar skills, and to help foster work which fortifies Latter-day Saints in their testimonies of the restored gospel while also engaging the broader world a religious ideas.  

Edited January 2, 2019 by BHodges
added URL to announcement

[BHodges]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is a belief in intelligent design anti-science?  Doesn't everyone who believes in God (and believes that He is the reason that this world and everything on it exists) believe in intelligent design?

It's complicated! 😂

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Editing of a journal?  As much as I enjoy the Review at times, I don't consider being general editor of it "a very important position" in terms of the Church. (No offense, Dan , I personally feel your work in other areas, especially in groundbreaking stuff like the Meti texts, has greater unique effect).

We live in a culture of micro management.  

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a rather common method here but I probably should be more careful in the future.

That's me...especially since I always think of stuff I want to add afterwards.

I am finding adding multiple links and quotes more troublesome these days as it dumps stuff when I go to another window, so often save unfinished posts.  I try and remember to mention I am doing it, but probably forget half the time.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We live in a culture of micro management.  

Actually I think it varies a great deal.  There are plenty of times leadership just refers people back to local leaders, for example.  And training can be limited at times as well...in fact to the point where people are complaining there isn't more involvement from SLC.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, BHodges said:

I trust you're aware that the Mormon Studies Review—which was billed to be addressed primarily to the academy and not to Latter-day Saints in particular—has now been acquired by the University of Illinois Press and is no longer an Institute publication. It was a difficult experiment in some ways, seeking to critically engage with Mormon studies including the voices of LDSaint and non-LDSaint alike. In the end it was decided by all parties that it was better suited elsewhere. But MSR was never the primary reason for the Institute's existence (although pre-2013 some people might disagree). The primary focus (as the mission statement says) is on gathering and nurturing disciple-scholars, providing an environment where professionals and some students can hone their disciple-scholar skills, and to help foster work which fortifies Latter-day Saints in their testimonies of the restored gospel while also engaging the broader world a religious ideas.  

Yes. I don't have strong opinions on it leaving, although perhaps it is for the best. What I wish would happen is that we'd have a place engaging in the broader Mormon Studies world but giving a critique that sometimes gets left out. Merely passing Mormon Studies off to a location where it's less controversial is a bit of a lost opportunity. I think one can make a criticism of certain secular arguments from within a secular set of assumptions. Now that's not really happening. 

I think that the problem of classic FARMS was too much unnecessary conflict and making matters personal unnecessarily. Again I think solid arguments from within the classic secular environment would be helpful. 

But there's two different tracks for sure. One is engaging arguments head on from within methodological secularism. The second is acknowledging and making explicit secular assumptions and showing how they affect argument. I think both approaches are necessary. I think, for example, Taves argument (which rests heavily upon an ambiguous comment by Joseph's uncle), can be critiqued from within secularism. I wish we'd seen that.

I do hope we'll see such engagement more from MI in the future. I'd also, as I've mentioned before, like to see more engagement with historicity issue. As I've mentioned before there's a perception, however unfair, that the MI has moved away from engaging with historicity issues or even analysis preferring to see everything through a lens of pseudopigrapha. I sometimes worry that we're presented at times with a false dichotomy between historicity arguments that sometimes don't engage the critics well and pseudopigrapha arguments. Those simply aren't the only choices.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

That's me...especially since I always think of stuff I want to add afterwards.

I am finding adding multiple links and quotes more troublesome these days as it dumps stuff when I go to another window, so often save unfinished posts.  I try and remember to mention I am doing it, but probably forget half the time.

Yes. A problem with one of the iterations of the forum software is that sometimes links get seen as corrupt (usually after editing a link) and then you can't save the comment. You end up having to remove all links and readd them one at a time to see what's causing the problem. It's why I save multiple times when writing. If I compose all at once then I more often at not hit the dreaded error not letting me post.

Edited January 2, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but Lou was so specific on how E. Packer and other G.A.'s were involved with the piece on Dehlin that a denial raises more questions. Why would Lou say such things? Was he just so angry, still, after all these years, that he would make up a story involving E. Packer in order to get back at Mr. Hodges for something that Mr. Hodges didn't do?  Why was he so specific and why is he backing off the story now? Why is it so important to deny G.A. involvement in defending the faith? It seems to me that the brethren wouldn't mind owning this, but they always like layers in between, like when the church convinced "donors" to buy Hoffman's forgeries then "donate" the forgeries to the church.

Do you think Mr. Midgley will eventually explain his outburst, if it isn't true?

You have either two people lying through their teeth for years or one person who now states he got his latest (most detailed ever by far that I have seen) version wrong.  I don't know why Lou thought that was the story.  I know he has said he has spoken to a number of people about it over the years.  I think he was likely piecing together small puzzle pieces and made some incorrect assumptions about the bigger picture and the gaps in the story.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the info.

From a purely business perspective, it just seems like poor business management.

If a business was effectively taken over and all the founders ousted or exited on their own accord, then they have no one to blame but themselves, it seems.  They had control at one point - then they made themselves too vulnerable and lost it. It may have been dirty, it may have felt like betrayal, but business owners/founders need to have the wisdom and foresight to protect against such take-overs. 

So if you were asked by the prophet to join BYU, you would have refused or insisted on a contract detailing how complete control for all decisions remained in your hands? (Can't remember where I heard it, so don't treat it as fact, but I believe previous overtures direct from the university had been turned down).

When the cause for creating FARMS was in part to help further the work of the Church and not just about personal satisfaction, I can understand why the Church's request was not refused.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lou acknowledged being mistaken and thanked Greg for the correction.

 

Could just be spin to save face and walk back disclosures made in the heat of the moment by someone who is obviously still harboring a lot of frustration over events 6+ years ago.  I think we shouldn't dismiss this possibility.  

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I can only provide that in my experience Dan and Greg's comments have always been consistent from the beginning in the telling of their own personal experiences and when relating shared experiences.  While that doesn't mean they have been honest (though I believe they are, there is nothing either has done that ever caused me to doubt their honesty), it goes a long way for me to believing they are likely as accurate as possible (humans never getting it perfectly right).

As a Board member, I was aware of the goings on. And I second that the stories have always been consistent for years. Let me just say I have no doubt some higher ups supported Dan. As I said before, always take Lou's stories with a grain of salt.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Could just be spin to save face and walk back disclosures made in the heat of the moment by someone who is obviously still harboring a lot of frustration over events 6+ years ago.  I think we shouldn't dismiss this possibility.  

Knowing the background and the people involved, I do.

You should consider frustration often leads to errors.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

 

Do you think Mr. Midgley will eventually explain his outburst, if it isn't true?

Seriously? He said he was mistaken. What is there to explain beyond that? It's time to give it a rest.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Knowing the background and the people involved, I do.

You should consider frustration often leads to errors.

You might be correct, but then again we have other stories of high level leaders getting involved directly in disciplinary actions.  The way Midgley described events does not sound out of line with other events we've heard about in the past.  

[Bernard Gui]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:how do I have a double standard?  I'm just pointing out that one would think if Holland was really wanting to see a complete change of course with the MI he'd sit with those in charge and tell them directly to change.  I've not commented on Peterson getting told via email, at least not for a few years and I think I've come down on the side of saying it sounded quite an inappropriate way of handling it on the part of MI.  

Then apparently we agree. Let me speak of my own experience.

I have no provable information what the behind-the-scene machinations were, but I was subject to similar unkind treatment when I was forced to retire from my public school teaching career. Rather than privately sit down and talk about my position (because after 42 years of exemplary evaluations, teacher of the year awards, teaching with an advanced degree, older-age health insurance premiums, and multiple extra-service stipends, I was one of the highest paid teachers in the district), it was obvious the truth was that they could pay for three first year teachers if I were gone.

But they couldn’t remove me just because of my age and salary. Maybe we could have worked together on a retirement deal, but instead for my last four years I was given outrageous work loads, multiple school, subject, and room changes, impossible time and travel expectations that resulted in official reprimands, and false accusations of racism, malfeasance, and, bullying - none of these latter accusations had ever remotely been an issue any time in my career. The result was physical and emotional distress and illness that lead to my getting long-term medical leave at the insistence of my doctor, and eventual acquiesce on my part to quit and go away since they would offer no relief to the causes of the health problems.

While a bigger person could probably just move one, there were things done and words said that destroyed my hard-earned legacy locally and regionally. For example, when some of my students and parents later asked why I had not returned to school after Christmas vacation, they were told the lie that I was disgusted with them and never wanted to see them again, so I had refused to come back. To this day six years later there are still students I loved who believe this. I was accused of violating grading and field trip policies, but when I asked what they were, I was told they would not disclose them to me unless I tried to return to work and then I would face official investigation. I said this sounded like blackmail, but there was no response. I was banned from school campuses and could retrieve my personal property from my schools only if I were accompanied at all times by the principal. It was plain that they were forcing me to quit. I was not allowed to say goodbye to my classes and there was no retirement party for me. 

 I also learned that several other experienced teachers were being ousted in similar ways. It was at this point that I also learned how utterly useless the teachers union is.

The administrators and a few colleagues (one in particular who got my job the next year) who did all this refused to talk about it when I asked why they were firing me in such an abusive way. I still do not know the truth and I have lost all respect for them. Even after six years I still get anxiety attacks when I drive past my old junior high and high schools, and I feel uncomfortable around some former colleagues who participated in my ouster and perpetuated the false stories about me to the point that I avoid them at all costs including attending memorial or celebratory alumni functions. I’m sure a better person than me would let all this go.

In some small way then, I think I can empathize in part what happened to the former MI leadership. It could have been done better. They deserved more.IMO.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You might be correct, but then again we have other stories of high level leaders getting involved directly in disciplinary actions.  The way Midgley described events does not sound out of line with other events we've heard about in the past.  

Which may be one of the reasons he made the assumptions he made...because he had seen some other things work that way in the past and he improperly extrapolated they had happened again.

Again you are requiring us to believe Dan and Greg have consistently lied about things they were directly involved (for what purpose?) in where Lou was only reporting what he believed he had been told.  And Lou has admitted he was wrong.

I don't think Lou would have done that unless he believed he was wrong.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm