Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Tom
_Emeritus
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _Tom »

Gadianton wrote:Thanks for the timely updates, professor.

Case in point:

I recently demonstrated that a book written by an Australian Latter-day Saint historian called Mormon and Maori had intentionally well documented and truly remarkable Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative, and butchered the Book of Mormon along the way.


Boy, do I regret not putting my top ten list of failed Interpreter articles together for this year. This was slated as my number 1. Other than a pingback, the comments section scored goose eggs. Nobody cared. Why should the Church promote work that nobody cares about? even with all the Interpreter supporters showing up to slam the new MI, a lot of the core Mopologetic work being published there isn't getting much attention.

Gadianton, I'm pleased to note that Dr. Midgley has recently posted up a storm attacking a fellow Latter-day Saint who has questioned an aspect of his review. Highly entertaining.

Speaking of Dr. Midgley, I am also pleased to note that I recently came across an editorial written by him while he attended the U. It is available here.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _Lemmie »

With much thanks to Stemelbow for encouraging the conversation to continue over at MD&D, Blair Hodges responds to him, and offers some additional excerpts from Holland's speech, with some commentary:
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
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _Lemmie »

BHodges wrote:Elder Holland's address is a Rorschach test of sorts. For people at the Institute who have been involved in discussions about the changing mission statement and the redirection of Institute resources and efforts over the past 5 years, and more intensely over the past two years, his address signaled the increased attention, and called for even more attention, being given to Latter-day Saints in particular and not the broader academy. Particularly regarding Mormon studies. The bulk of Elder Holland's most challenging remarks addressed the problem of Mormon studies and the term Mormon itself, something he sympathized with the Institute on, saying the Church as a whole was reckoning with how to realign with President Nelson's counsel on that term and what it represents. So his charge wasn't vanilla, certainly, nor is the Institute dismissing his words. It has already been moving to align better with them, as witnessed by the departure of the Mormon Studies Review.

I think you're right that the Rorschach test has been interpreted by others as a severe rebuke and an affirmation of their narrative about a "coup" and ignoring the Saints. People are picking up on a flavor of schadenfreude in these critiques. The Institute itself has avoided squabbling with entities like Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, despite what I think are some unfair criticisms coming from some of the people associated with those entities. Convincing the other side of that (a side which itself has some different perspectives about the Maxwell Institute as evidenced by the reassurance of friends I have who work with each of those entities) is a difficult task.



BHodges wrote: Elder Holland was more concerned about Institute scholars wearing their faith on their sleeves, while doing the best academic work possible, and sometimes in answer to criticisms of the Church or more directly to bolster the faith of the Saints, than he was with "lobbing direct attacks out of a shelter." Nothing in his remarks called for hostile, snarky, sarcastic, parodying attacks or flagrant fouls. Here's another excerpt from Elder Holland which Dr. Peterson didn't emphasize in his selective reading about how Institute scholars are trying to reach multiple audiences, those in the academy and those in the pews (and the few who reside in both):

By speaking to two audiences, I’m not suggesting you be two-faced. This is not a call to hypocrisy but precisely the opposite. When you’re writing for the household of faith, you should never write anything that would give your doctoral adviser just cause to accuse you of dishonesty. Likewise, when you are writing for an academic journal, you should never write anything that would give your ministering companion just cause to accuse you of disloyalty. Your soul must be one—integrated, intact, and whole—even as your voice may speak in different languages to different audiences. This is a daunting thing we are asking of you, but we see the Maxwell Institute as a rarified training ground where gospel athletes stretch their abilities to speak in grace and truth to all of our Father’s children. But that can be only if you never, ever lose sight of your call to be true to the kingdom of God.

He followed this up with a stirring excerpt from George MacDonald. Not to be missed, forthcoming in our annual report which is going to the printer this week. Interesting to me is Elder Holland's qualification of "just cause to accuse." He doesn't call for people to accuse or police the Institute, although some set themselves up in that role. He's aware of unjust accusations and the presence of people who are trying to police the Institute and wants us to be on guard.

We aren't endeavoring to set up a "snobbish plane"; we're recognizing that honesty and integrity in scholarship is part of a negotiation that happens with doctoral advisers and other people with certain expectations in the academy. And the academy has also carved out spaces for people of faith to write from perspectives of faith, as Elder Holland discusses. Navigating those shoals can be difficult, but it's part of what makes the Institute special and important to the church as well as the academy.

Parenthetically, the accusation of snobbishness can easily be leveled at any of these entities. A glance at recent Interpreter offerings, for example, shows articles with Latin titles, explorations of names in the Lord of the Rings versus the Book of Mormon, and observations about Assyria's attack on Northern Israel. I don't know that any of these would appeal to a Relief Society President in Parowan. Should they not be published? Or should we think more highly of the RS president?
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _I have a question »

Lemmie wrote:
By speaking to two audiences, I’m not suggesting you be two-faced. This is not a call to hypocrisy but precisely the opposite. When you’re writing for the household of faith, you should never write anything that would give your doctoral adviser just cause to accuse you of dishonesty. Likewise, when you are writing for an academic journal, you should never write anything that would give your ministering companion just cause to accuse you of disloyalty.


This is a staggering ask.

There are a plethora of topics relating to Mormon studies where there would be conflict between an academic piece of writing and a faithful one. The Book of Abraham is one such example. How can one write an honest academic piece about Joseph's translation of the papyrus into the Book of Abraham and not throw faith under the bus? Likewise, how can one write a faithful piece about Joseph's translation of the papyrus into the Book of Abraham and not throw academic honesty under the bus?

I would say that asking those BYU scholars be two-faced is EXACTLY what Elder Holland is suggesting.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _moksha »

The Maxwell Institute and the Mormon Interpreter are like the two sides of the force locked in a battle. They both have a formidable Midichlorian count, but one seeks to further the interests of the Republic and the other seeks to have the Emperor squash the first group. Will the Emperor listen? Even now Imperial Trooper Scott Lloyd has made a convincing argument by stating that apologetics never involves having to apologize for being wrong. Surely that will resonate with the Emperor.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _Lemmie »

Here's a recent post from BHodges, re his take on the way he thinks Holland wants lds apologetics to be done:

Elder Holland was more concerned about Institute scholars wearing their faith on their sleeves, while doing the best academic work possible, and sometimes in answer to criticisms of the Church or more directly to bolster the faith of the Saints, than he was with "lobbing direct attacks out of a shelter." Nothing in his remarks called for hostile, snarky, sarcastic, parodying attacks or flagrant fouls.

And here's something posted on a blog today, from an entry explaining why the blogger apparently did not respond to or assist in the apologetic process of responding to Jenkin's posts, during the Jenkins-Hamblin exchanges in 2015:

DCP wrote:
Hamblin wrote:You can quote me.
Hahaha those people are morons....

So now, admittedly with rather undiplomatic or politically incorrect language, you have our brief but frank take on that discussion. Should you or anybody else care.

There's a little more, mostly justification for NOT doing apologetics, apparently based on a surprising amount of attention this blogger pays to our tiny corner of the internet.

It's pretty obvious why the change in 2012 happened.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Lemmie wrote:Maxwell asked for quality, peer-reviewed scholarship. He didn't say to shift the blame for one's failure to produce legitimate work onto one's readers.

And what does "failed to benefit from" mean? That is irrelevant to the process of academic research, and seems more pointed toward a need to assuage someone's ego.

Continuing the basketball metaphor, this is the player who complains to the ref that every single call against him is wrong, and has a fit every time his ever-present flopping doesn't draw a call against his opponents. All that player gains is a reputation for ruining the game.


So what you're saying is that Dr. Peterson is the Danny Ainge of Mormon apologetics. :lol:
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Post Reply