A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[let’s roll]

 I didn’t read anything of substance in the OP.  Merely recognition by the Brethren that they are aware of, and interested in, the MI.  

Would those of you that think there’s a course correction going on care to share your thoughts on the current course as well as what you believe the course will be after it is corrected?

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

 I didn’t read anything of substance in the OP.  Merely recognition by the Brethren that they are aware of, and interested in, the MI.  

So President Nelson referring to "the Maxwell Institute problem" and expressing concern about their "identity" in an email to Elder Holland isn't remarkable in any way? 

[let’s roll]

48 minutes ago, Nevo said:

So President Nelson referring to "the Maxwell Institute problem" and expressing concern about their "identity" in an email to Elder Holland isn't remarkable in any way? 

No.  He’s just stating the obvious.  The “problem” is that 99% of the members of the Church and 99.9% of the rest of the world have no idea what the MI is and why it exists.  

He’s shown that he has no qualms ending programs that don’t contribute to the continuing restoration.  This just seems to be an apostolic hug on the part of Elder Holland and an invitation for the MI to become more relevant and play a discernible role in that restoration.

Hence my question to those who follow the work of the MI.  What is it about the current course of the MI that you believe is amiss and what could be done to put it on a course that would contribute in a greater way to the work of the restoration.

Edited December 30, 2018 by let’s roll

[Nevo]

15 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

No.  He’s just stating the obvious.  The “problem” is that 99% of the members of the Church and 99.9% of the rest of the world have no idea what the MI is and why it exists.

Now you're just obfuscating. President Nelson said of the Maxwell Institute in the same email: “[We] need to [help them] know who they are and why they exist." That's the  identity "problem" he's concerned about, not what others think of the Institute.

If the Brethren feel the MI is tracking in the right direction, why would Elder Holland bring up the findings of an internal report from 2014 that "the current culture at MI may have lost some of the institute’s founding vision and original purpose"?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Now you're just obfuscating. President Nelson said of the Maxwell Institute in the same email: “[We] need to [help them] know who they are and why they exist." That's the  identity "problem" he's concerned about, not what others think of the Institute.

If the Brethren feel the MI is tracking in the right direction, why would Elder Holland bring up the findings of an internal report from 2014 that "the current culture at MI may have lost some of the institute’s founding vision and original purpose"?

I agree.

I repeat that I wasn't there to hear the talk, nor have I seen a full text, but I see nothing in what has been quoted from it to cause me to characterize it as "an apostolic hug."

On the contrary, if I were NAMI, I would be a bit unsettled at this point by the phrasing about a "problem" of  "identity" at the institute, the current re-examination of the "direction and priorities of the Church" and NAMI "being measured for your role in these developments." It strikes me as a shot across the bow -- kindly, restrained and forbearing, to be sure, but a warning shot notwithstanding. Especially in the broader context of the discussion about "Mormon studies" and how an institution of "disciple scholars" cannot pursue that endeavor with an outlook such as that which prevails at other academic institutions.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 I didn’t read anything of substance in the OP.  Merely recognition by the Brethren that they are aware of, and interested in, the MI.  

 

In reading the OP, did you bother clicking on the link and reading the essay?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Nevo said:

Give it a shot. 

They published this, after all:

 

Sheesh! That looks like something John Lennon might have written while on one of his acid trips.

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree.

I repeat that I wasn't there to hear the talk, nor have I seen a full text, but I see nothing in what has been quoted from it to cause me to characterize it as "an apostolic hug."

On the contrary, if I were NAMI, I would be a bit unsettled at this point by the phrasing about a "problem" of  "identity" at the institute, the current re-examination of the "direction and priorities of the Church" and NAMI "being measured for your role in these developments." It strikes me as a shot across the bow -- kindly, restrained and forbearing, to be sure, but a warning shot notwithstanding. Especially in the broader context of the discussion about "Mormon studies" and how an institution of "disciple scholars" cannot pursue that endeavor with an outlook such as that which prevails at other academic institutions.

Elder Holland was quoted as saying he hoped those at the MI would view all the attention by the Brethren as “affirming”...you know, kind of like a hug. 😇

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Elder Holland was quoted as saying he hoped those at the MI would view all the attention by the Brethren as “affirming”...you know, kind of like a hug. 😇

If you mean the sort of hug one might receive after being taken to the woodshed, the “showing forth an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved,” kind of hug, I can maybe see that. 

Edited December 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Peppermint Patty]

I have a completely different interpretation of what Elder Holland said. I thought Elder Holland was very supportive, appreciative and thankful for the Maxwell Institute's direction and efforts. I think it was clear the Maxwell Institute has the support and attention of the 12.

In other related news, the Maxwell Institute just announced that Fiona and Teryl Givens and Steven L. Peck will be joining the Institute in 2019. This is great news. 

https://twitter.com/MI_BYU

 

If any of you enjoy podcasts, you need to be listening to Blair Hodges Maxwell Institute podcasts. They are excellent.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Peppermint Patty

[Peppermint Patty]

I forgot to mention that The Maxwell Institute will be making Elder Holland's transcript available for everyone to read. In addition, the Maxwell Institute will soon be posting the complete video of Elder Holland's talk so that everyone can watch.

I really look forward to both watching and reading Elder Holland's talk in its entirety.

Quote

1. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Quorum of Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “The Maxwell Legacy in the 21st Century,” 2018 Neal A. Maxwell Lecture. The publication of this lecture is forthcoming in the Institute’s 2018 Annual Report. The lecture will also be available via video soon at youtube.com/themaxwellinstitute.

https://mi.byu.edu/new-2019-disciple-scholars/#_ednref1

Edited December 30, 2018 by Peppermint Patty

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I have a completely different interpretation of what Elder Holland said. I thought Elder Holland was very supportive, appreciative and thankful for the Maxwell Institute's direction and efforts. I think it was clear the Maxwell Institute has the support and attention of the 12.

In other related news, the Maxwell Institute just announced that Fiona and Teryl Givens and Steven L. Peck will be joining the Institute in 2019. This is great news. 

https://twitter.com/MI_BYU

 

If any of you enjoy podcasts, you need to be listening to Blair Hodges Maxwell Institute podcasts. They are excellent.

Great news re the Givens.  The God Who Weeps is a great book.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Nevo said:

Now you're just obfuscating. President Nelson said of the Maxwell Institute in the same email: “[We] need to [help them] know who they are and why they exist." That's the  identity "problem" he's concerned about, not what others think of the Institute.

If the Brethren feel the MI is tracking in the right direction, why would Elder Holland bring up the findings of an internal report from 2014 that "the current culture at MI may have lost some of the institute’s founding vision and original purpose"?

This seems right. They've done some great work. The close readings of the Book of Mormon from the theological seminar are fantastic. Although for some reason they're not available for Kindle or iBooks. (I've mentioned that to Blair but thus far no change - he thought it was available on Kindle) However moving so much towards a much more secular Mormon Studies model, while perhaps better for academic respectability, seems to miss some of the mission of the organization. I think that disturbs the brethren. 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/29/2018 at 1:27 PM, hope_for_things said:

The mission statement itself could be founded on a biased orientation. 

Oh the quaint tale that "objectivity" exists rises like the pale moon, silent and colorless, yet again. 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/29/2018 at 4:47 PM, Calm said:

What is an unbiased orientation?  Preference for rigorous research is a bias in and of itself.

It is a fundamentalist religious notion I heard about once I think.

 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh the quaint tale that "objectivity" exists rises like the pale moon, silent and colorless, yet again. 

But beware the folk lore that all bias is created equal, like the big bad wolf hiding under the covers of the perfectionist fallacy.  Dinner time!  🐺 

[BHodges]

I think there has been a little confusion about Elder Holland's Maxwell Lecture. When he says the Institute has been the focus of scrutiny by church leadership he's referring to the mission statement overhaul and leadership changes since 2013. In response to an external review of the Institute referred to in Elder Holland's lecture, completed in early 2014, a committee was formed to find a director to take the place of Jerry Bradford who was already set to retire. That external review helped narrow the field and Spencer Fluhman was selected from among a number of interesting candidates. Fluhman was then tasked with updating the Institute's mission statement in response to the external review--a review of the Institute from its inception up to Fluhman's appointment, not a review of the Institute up to the present. Revising the mission statement took more than a year, and was completed in direct consultation with and with the approbation of the highest councils of the Church. Hence Elder Holland's remarks abut close attention being paid to the Institute. 

On 12/29/2018 at 6:54 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Unlike the last one (2012) this one obviously is coming from the highest councils of the Church.

The Institute's course then as now is shaped and approved by BYU administration and its Board of Trustees, which includes apostles.

On 12/29/2018 at 12:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

I wish we had the full transcript as well.  I have been following a few discussions on this topic and I am concerned that this might signal a swing backwards from my perspective.  

Have there been any changes in the staff at MI that might be significant?  

I also think this is emblematic of a tension that exists when a university is owned by a  religious institution.  It makes for a very difficult dance of trying to have free thought and rigorous research that is respectable, but at the same time having to please the owning institution which brings bias into the equation.  

The Institute has been preparing the address for publication in its Annual Report. (I've spent a lot of December on this publication, including precious vacation time over the break!) We received approval for its publication and we also recently received approval to post the video as well. Those should both be available in January. These things take some time to publish!

The only recent staff changes are the additions of Terryl and Fiona Givens, and Steven Peck as new Institute scholars. That's been in the works for some time now. 

On 12/29/2018 at 1:40 PM, Nevo said:

I am not a big fan of the Maxwell Institute right now. I'm still peeved that the one-year "digital subscription" I paid for last December--specifically so I could access the 2018 issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies--was never honored.

If I want to read the latest issue of JBMS, I will need to purchase an additional online subscription through the University of Illinois Press. Or I can purchase individual articles from the issue for $14 each. And if I want to read future issues of Mormon Studies Review, well, that will be another $20 (per issue). At least JBMS is now "far more readily available to scholars working in the academy" (https://mi.byu.edu/2018-jbms/). Huzzah!

Luckily, though, longtime supporters of the MI like myself still get the occasional bone tossed their way, such as "Kylan Rice’s review of a Book of Mormon-inspired book of deeply postmodern poetry by Renee Angle called Wo0" (https://mi.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/JBMS27-Rice-Sample.pdf).

Nevo, sorry about your poor experience. You have a right to your peevedness. The changes in our subscription model gave brought short-term headaches but with an eye toward long-term sustainability. The resources in personnel and money will be much better handled under the new model than the old, but it hasn't been problem-free. Please email me and I'll make sure your recent subscription is honored. (blairhodges@byu.edu.) The Wo0 review was far out. What did you think of Janiece Johnson's article, which we also made freely available to non-subscribers?

Let's Roll and Peppermint Patty have a good handle on how the Institute receives Elder Holland's address. It won't surprise people here to know that the Institute's new mission statement directly reflects some of President Nelson's concerns. The new statement specifically explains that the work of the Institute includes the charge to strengthen church members specifically "in their testimonies of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ." Getting the name of Christ into the statement explicitly. Sound familiar to anything else President Nelson has emphasized lately? Let's just say people at the Institute weren't caught off guard by President Nelson's emphasis on the name of the Church and the focus on Christ! 

What's interesting to me personally is how Elder Holland's address is like a Rorschach test. Those who already view the Institute with suspicion or even bad feeling (a very small group, to be sure) read it as a rebuke. Those who are more positively disposed toward the Institute see it as an affirming challenge. Having access to the full transcript will be helpful, of course. It's on the way. As for me, I see the church and BYU investing more and more in the Institute. Getting us a new building more central to campus, bringing in more and more scholars, facilitating the publication of the first church-approved study edition of the Book of Mormon, etc. And more to come! 

Edited December 31, 2018 by BHodges

[clarkgoble]

Thanks for chiming in Blair. BTW - I agree that the conflict between the Interpreter and Maxwell Institute is of interest to only a tiny group of people. That said, I do worry that apologetics is being left by the Maxwell Institute. I'd like to see more that goes beyond say what Adam did in his Letters to a Young Mormon. That is more traditional apologetics without perhaps some of the problematic stuff of the FARMS era or so forth. The worry some have looking in is that the majority of people at the MI adopt a fictionalist view of scripture. (Not saying that's true) I think that's one reason why the Givens are a welcome addition. In a certain sense much of their work is apologetic.  

BTW - what's up with the Kindle issue? I still am unable to order Kindle versions of many MI books. Several are unavailable from Amazon even in paperback. (i.e. the Alma 32 volume) 

Edited December 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rich Hansen]

Kudos to the clear thinkers!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, BHodges said:

The Institute's course then as now is shaped and approved by BYU administration and its Board of Trustees, which includes apostles.

Are you saying that the ouster of Peterson and colleagues from the editorship of Mormon Stidies Review was a direct part of “the institute’s course” being “shaped and approved” by apostles on the board of trustees? Did they know of and approve it in advance? Or did they merely refrain from intervening once it was a done deal? 

I had understood it to be the latter, and I recognize all this happened before you came on board as the institute’s PR director, but perhaps you are privy to some reliable but heretofore undisclosed information to the contrary. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But beware the folk lore that all bias is created equal, like the big bad wolf hiding under the covers of the perfectionist fallacy.  Dinner time!  🐺 

CFR.

(Not really...)

But seriously if you can justify it publish it.

[Peppermint Patty]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you saying that the ouster of Peterson and colleagues from the editorship of Mormon Stidies Review was a direct part of “the institute’s course” being “shaped and approved” by apostles on the board of trustees? Did they know of and approve it in advance? Or did the merely refrain from intervening once it was a done deal? 

 

56 minutes ago, BHodges said:

The Institute's course then as now is shaped and approved by BYU administration and its Board of Trustees, which includes apostles.

 

Scott, Blair's statement leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity. Please read it again. The 2012 change was "shaped and approved by the BYU administration and its Board of trustees, which includes apostles."

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

 

 

Scott, Blair's statement leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity. Please read it again. The 2012 change was "shaped and approved by the BYU administration and its Board of trustees, which includes apostles."

I’ve read and re-read it, and pardon, but I do see ambiguity. Hence my probing question. 

Do you have reliable inside  information to offer? If not, I would prefer to see a response from Blair. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

CFR.

(Not really...)

But seriously if you can justify it publish it.

It’s a common sense observation, who needs to publish it.  Would you honestly argue that all bias is created equally?  Perhaps the Smithsonian Institute is equally as biased as the Taliban?  

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you saying that the ouster of Peterson and colleagues from the editorship of Mormon Stidies Review was a direct part of “the institute’s course” being “shaped and approved” by apostles on the board of trustees? Did they know of and approve it in advance? Or did they merely refrain from intervening once it was a done deal? 

I had understood it to be the latter, and I recognize all this happened before you came on board, but perhaps you are privy to some reliable but heretofore undisclosed information to the contrary. 

Yeah, like if he is he would post it here ..