BHodges wrote: I think those who want to interpret Elder Holland's lecture as condoning either the current Maxwell Institute or the "old MI" will either be confused by the lecture or they will be forced to ignore parts of the lecture that run against their interpretation. Current Maxwell Institute scholars (and employees like myself) are all committed to being true to the Kingdom of God. Sadly some of our fellow Saints have publicly claimed otherwise, sometimes explicitly but more often implicitly. I think it's likely that the Institute's (few) critics do think they are "more true" to it than current Institute personnel. That's pretty clear from the comments you can see in response to blog posts which insinuate that very thing, comments which I've never seen them push back on.
Elder Holland was speaking to the Institute as presently constituted. His words include excerpts from a January 2014 external review (meaning a review performed by people outside of the Institute and BYU) that spoke to the Institute as a whole, pre- and post-2012, but the directives were intended for the Institute as presently constituted. His lecture included principles that he said he'd like to see spread "apply across the entire campus and beyond," which I assume is one reason Dr. Peterson felt to comment on them with regard to Interpreter. But to the Institute specifically he said this during the lecture:
Elder Holland wrote:I come [to speak to you tonight] with love, appreciation, admiration, and applause for every good thing you have ever done, are now doing, or—as our title suggests—will yet do to seek the truth, build faith, and illuminate the majesty of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. For so much good done by so many for so long and who yet want to do more, I say, "'Thank you for the gift of your 'heart, might, mind and strength.'" One cannot give more.
This excerpt didn't appear in Dr. Peterson's blog post, perhaps because it wasn't directed to Interpreter. Elder Holland thanked the Institute for every good thing it has done, is currently doing, and will yet do. At the same time, I think Elder Holland wanted people to know that learning to speak to multiple audiences, learning to create disciple-scholarship and to be disciple-scholars, can be a difficult journey. Another excerpt:
Brothers and sisters and friends, we know you want—and are trying—to get this right. Professor Fluhman, whom I love almost as a son, phrased your intentions this way. He said: “The Maxwell Institute’s mission is unique because, though it is grounded in the most rigorous scholarly standards, it explicitly acknowledges [a Latter-day Saint faith], audience, . . . identity, and [commitment]. Because we pursue scholarship as a dimension of discipleship, we offer a fundamentally different approach to [the study of our own faith] and the study of religion more generally.”
That seems wonderfully consistent with your external review team’s counsel that the institute should “create an environment where faith [can] be nurtured and the Restoration defended, and all of this accomplished with the highest scholarly standards.”
Elder Holland said to the extent that these characterizations are truly representative of the Institute's work, "your trustees will enthusiastically and devotedly support you and the university administration in following that course to great success." At BYU this is always conditional, and it seems clear that Elder Holland wanted us to remember that. We're directly accountable to these governing bodies—governing bodies who are working to build up the Kingdom in their roles as stewards. (For example, if the Mormon Studies Review didn't entirely offer a "fundamentally different approach to the study of our own faith and the study of religion more generally” enough to satisfy our leadership it would make sense that MSR moved.) The Institute's work that is "grounded in the most rigorous scholarly standards" while more "explicitly acknowledging a Latter-day Saint faith, audience, identity, and commitment"—work which we've been doing throughout this time and for which Elder Holland directly expressed his love, appreciation, admiration, and applause—continues and, I believe, will only increase as Elder Holland so challenged.
I think selectively interpreting the lecture merely as a referendum on past changes at the Maxwell Institute results in a skewed reading. I see Elder Holland's vision and invitation as being much broader than that. Elder Holland doesn't want to be employed as tool, a battering ram, against the Institute