Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work?

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: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Tom »

I see that things are heating up in the wonderfully wacky comments section of SEN regarding the Maxwell Institute's recent changes.

First, Yakov ben Tov (YBT) makes a comment responding to the original post:

After sending a couple of emails it wasn't very difficult to find out that the university has been requesting the Maxwell Institute to save themselves and the university time and money to have all of the Institute's materials archived there. Again, Brigham Young University itself requested that they shift to this way of archiving their material. If anyone is interested in accessing the Maxwell Institute's old and ongoing publications they can do so here: https://scholarsarchive.BYU.... No need for conspiracy theories.

Dr. Midgley erupts:

This is pure bunk. It is simply not true. Why? As soon as it was possible to make available pdf and html electronic versions of what was published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), they were all made available. None of this was done after the meltdown in 2012 when Jerry Bradford and three other employees of the Maxwell Institute set in motion a plan to fire Dan Peterson, and then make a radical change of direction.

The primary complaint about shifting that massive archive of what was published by the old FARMS and then by the Maxwell Institute prior to the firing of Professor Peterson and the radical change of direction following the Purge, is that shifting that archive to the BYU Library once again breaks all links to all of those publications. And it seems that, at least to this point, one publication that sometimes had some useful information, has not been included.

Another comment from YBT:

I’m not sure what you are talking about here other than regular website maintenance. In fact, since 2012 many old FARMS items that were not available online at all were made available on the archive website. Rather than some odd conspiracy theory you and your friends seem to be arguing here, the Maxwell Institute looked like it was following trends in making those materials more available to wider audience by creating digital copies (which requires de-binding a book) and storing them in one place online.

As a historian of religious history and a sometimes commenter on your blog I will forever be confused about your conspiracy theories. Not so much about Louis’s, that kind of keeps his relationship with BYU (a la Wilkinson) going, although it’s him now claiming that others are acting in bad faith rather than the other way around. Still, very strange.

Dr. Midgley again:

I have exactly no idea what my involvement in making public what I like to call Wilkinson's Watergate has to do with anything. For those interested, the best essay setting out the truly embarrassing details about President Wilkinson's paranoia can be found in an essay by Gary Bergera in the Utah Historical Quarterly. The fact is that Jerry Bradford, who was once a student of mine when I first began teaching at BYU, and who I urged Noel Reynolds to hire to assist in managing FARMS, was involved with three other employees of the Maxwell Institute in a plot to fire Dan Peterson and change the direction of the Maxwell Institute. One of those employees felt deep remorse for being involved in this plot and wrote a long letter in which he expresses his sorrow and apologizes for what he came to see as some evil and entirely unbecoming one who is a Latter-day Saint.

This remarkable confession of evil deeds was sent to all those then employed by the Maxwell Institute, and I witnessed a copy being given to the current BYU President, and I have a copy of the letter, as do at least half a dozen others who were not employees of the Maxwell Institute. I mention this because there is no doubt that there was a plot (or conspiracy) to fire Dan Peterson and make a change of directions at the Maxwell Institute. In addition, one of the three who were asked to make an outside review of the Maxwell Institute, which document was quoted by Elder Maxwell [sic] eight or ten times in the scolding/warning he recently issued to the executive director and employees of the Institute, was David Holland, the youngest son of Elder Holland. And David, who is a former student of mine, must have both interviewed the Institute employee who wrote that letter apologizing for being involved in the plot I described, and it is likely that he had read that stunning letter.

It seems that Yakov ben Tov, who I believe is actually an employee of the Maxwell Institute, must be aware of these kinds of details. So his statement about how, "as a historian of religious history" he should not be unaware of this bit of real history, and hence not genuinely confused about what he seems anxious to brush aside as merely "conspiracy theories." If he still does not want to grant that there really was a very stupid plot involving getting Professor Peterson out of the Maxwell Institute and then changing its direction, he must be deeply into what the French call "bad faith"--that is, self-deception.

YBT responds:

Louis, I agree that Gary's essay highlights the embarrassment for BYU that Wilkinson was, how he treated you, and how he treated so many others at the university during his tenure. The unfortunate thing is, though, that you have inherited some of those traits in many ways. You are all about conspiracy theories and constantly assume the worst of everyone around you that you do not perceive as on your team.

As far as your narrative of the changes at the Maxwell Institute go you enjoy sharing bits of information here and there but never telling the full story. You, of all people, should be able to say the truth that it wasn't Bradford and two others at the Institute that wanted a shift with the journal that Dr. Peterson was editing, and you know as well that Dr. Peterson wasn't fired from all that he was involved in at the Institute either. You have admitted in the past that the decision to change the atmosphere away from attack style apologetics went at least up to Cecil Samuelson. And when you refer to one of our Christian friends and their letter apologizing to Dr. Peterson (which I have read) you should remember that they never claimed anything evil about what happened but rather remorse that things ended up transpiring the way that they did. That individual also was not aware of the involvement of the upper leadership at BYU, and when they asked to make that letter public the leadership outside of the Maxwell Institute put a stop to it.

On your note about the letter being sent to all employed at the Institute at the time, were there no women at the time? And you make a big deal now about the letter being sent to the current BYU president, but in the past you have admitted that, "The previous President at BYU...approved the “new direction” now being followed by the Maxwell Institute, which remains in place." BYU itself, with approval of the board, made the changes at the Maxwell Institute. I believe you mean Elder Holland and not Maxwell, but I assume that you are also aware that Holland's remarks were not meant to be used in the way that you and Dr. Peterson have constantly, literally day in and day out, been using them. If you need clarification on that note chat some more with Dr. Peterson.

You have loved over the years to theorize that I work for the Maxwell Institute, but, again, I do not. I do work for a university and am interested in observing what is going on. I wish that you and Dr. Peterson would both lay to rest the constant paranoia, but clearly you are both incapable of doing so.

Again, the plot at the Maxwell Institute: get Dr. Peterson out as the editor of the journal, have him focus on METI and do other things that he was involved in at the Institute. This isn't a difficult history to get at, unless you have a side project you've been running since 2012 that you are obsessed with pushing a narrative about what happened in 2012 and that audience would be very hurt if that narrative wasn't true. If that audience cared enough to look closer at the things you have admitted over the years then they would see what really happened. But it's a lot easier to get angry, believe that only what Dr. Peterson and Friends are doing what is best for their religious faith, and go on throughout the day in a mix of anger induced by Sic Et Non and Fox News.
“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
_Tom
_Emeritus
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Tom »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Peterson continues:

It seems that MI_BYU has now confirmed via Twitter that all links to historic materials at mi.BYU.edu will be broken, which, says one such webmaster, is “a devastating blow to webmasters who have relied on their information.” “Is this,” he asks, “an update or a purge?”

One observer estimates that this may be the fifth time — at least — over the past dozen years that all Maxwell Institute links have been broken in a site “update,” which, he remarks, causes “great grief to users of their material and [makes] valuable materials more and more difficult to find due to lost SEO rankings and visibility.” “Those who used that material like me will be punished with hundreds of dead links that hurt the SEO scores of users. How can they do this again? So troubling.”

A different person responds: “Yes. It is very frustrating. I wish they would drop the pretenses at maintaining any continuity with the former NAMI and just change their name.”

Another comment, regarding the Insights newsletter formerly published by the old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studes (or FARMS):

“It appears that all the meaty articles in Insights are not at the Scholars archive. Another ouch.”

Dr. Scratch, it occurs to me that we are reading excerpts from some type of exchange between some friends/associates. Is Skinny-L alive? Another Mopologetics list?
“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
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _moksha »

Lemmie wrote:
midgley wrote: My point is that the Kirkham Project is very important. Instead of publishing many volumes, the decision was made to make this collection available through a server maintained by the BYU Library.

So, midgley's argument is that since important stuff is put on a server maintained by BYU, this means that the maxwell institute's acceptance of BYU's offer to maintain the farms catalogue on their server is.... bad?

Perhaps per agreement with the BYU Honors Code Office, the BYU Library insists that all users sign a non-disclosure agreement before accessing the material. If this is known to Dr. Midgley, then his apprehension is well founded. This would, of course, explain why none of the material was cited by the Community of Christ writers.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _moksha »

Tom wrote:Is Skinny-L alive? Another Mopologetics list?

It is now called the L-Dee Ablo list and it is found on the dark web under the alt-humanity section.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Gadianton »

the most explosive revelation so far:

YBT wrote: but I assume that you are also aware that Holland's remarks were not meant to be used in the way that you and Dr. Peterson have constantly, literally day in and day out, been using them. If you need clarification on that note chat some more with Dr. Peterson.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:the most explosive revelation so far:

YBT wrote:but I assume that you are also aware that Holland's remarks were not meant to be used in the way that you and Dr. Peterson have constantly, literally day in and day out, been using them. If you need clarification on that note chat some more with Dr. Peterson.

Whoa! This seems to be implying that DCP was personally scolded by the Brethren! You are right, Dean: if this is true, it’s absolutely devastating.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Lemmie »

And it continues...

Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 22 minutes ago

YbT does not realize that a great many people have deep concerns about the 2012 "change of directions" at the Maxwell Institute.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 11 minutes ago

No, I know a few people have bought into the narrative or events of 2012 the way that’s Dr. Peterson, you, Dr. Hamblin for a while, and a small group of others have told the story. You have admitted in comment sections aspects to that story that completely contradict Dr. Peterson’s narrative and your and Bill’s claims that it was a somehow a coup.

You have to admit that it’s pretty terrifying and unhealthy that your rhetorical moves the last several years have made people like Kiwi57 seriously question whether or not the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU would be fit to take on the archive of the Maxwell Institute. That’s not good for your faith community that people are buying into your stories that heavily.

Luckily I have discussions with a lot of Mormons and the fraction of Mormons that buy that story, let alone that know anything about, seems to only be those Mormons who follow Dr. Peterson’s blog closely. Outside of that the majority of Mormons I engage with have no idea about the whole of BYU, including the library, somehow being biased against a Dr. Peterson. How terrifying of a world would that be to live in suspicion of literally everything?

Wow.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Lemmie »

This exchange deserves to be preserved:

--
Yakov ben Tov > Kiwi57 • 5 hours ago

Is it anti-Mormon now to point out the fact that Fielding Smith, Jr. tore out the earliest narrative version of Smith's first vision?

--
Kiwi57 > Yakov ben Tov • 4 hours ago • edited

Is it anti-Mormon now to point out the fact that Fielding Smith, Jr. tore out the earliest narrative version of Smith's first vision?

But Mister Shades didn't merely "point out" any such "fact," he made a specific accusation: "If the Maxwell Institute is guilty of suppressing information in this case, then so much more so was Joseph Fielding Smith suppressing information in that case [as] well."

Furthermore, it's not a "fact" that JFS "tore out" those pages, it's speculation. The fact is that someone separated the narrative history pages (which included the First Vision account, but contained other material as well) from the letter book, and someone put those pages into a safe (instead of getting rid of them) in JFS's office, and someone subsequently put them back with the letter book. Since there is no conclusive evidence about who did what, it is therefore not a "fact" that those three someones were all the same person. Sorry.

And it is unquestionably anti-Mormon - and it has always been so - to spin up a "conspiracy" to "suppress" any "information" from the fact that a unique, priceless autographic document was put into a safe.

Sorry.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Kiwi57 • 4 hours ago

I am sorry Kiwi57, but your above explanation simply does not cut it. What historian of Mormon history have you ever heard make the argument that you made above? Every time this episode of Mormon history has ever come up at an academic conference or in conversation that I have been in with other academics the explanation has always been that it is clear Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. was the one that excised the pages in the mid-twentieth century. All of the scholars at the Joseph Smith Papers Project that I have spoken to about this issue, for instance, are convinced that it was Fielding Smith, Jr.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Lemmie »

more about the email Midgley says everyone received, that apologized for the plot to oust Peterson, according to Midgley:

Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 6 hours ago

I wouldn't ever consider a series of comments a crime, but the way you have used Holland's speech (similar to how you have used your friend's email) is not necessarily very kind. When you mention that speech it is for a very specific purpose, and it is that purpose which I wish you and Dr. Peterson could stop bringing up publicly because it is not helping you, BYU, or the image of the Maxwell Institute. It is hurting everybody involved, and you should be taking that more seriously than your online commenting habits seem to be.

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 2 hours ago

What "friend's email" have I used? And I have a very good reasons to understand Elder Holland's speech the way I do. To brush it aside, given its contents, is a serious mistake.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • an hour ago

The email/letter that you keep saying was sent to all Maxwell Institute employees and then the current president. Yes, Holland's speech was a reminder of what the Maxwell Institute was set up to do, but you and Dr. Peterson too quickly blend "Maxwell Institute" with "FARMS," even though you know that FARMS was brought in under one of the arms of the Maxwell Institute, the Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. It was never the whole, and, although Dr. Peterson several months ago admitted that this was never a coup because he was the never the boss, you and Dr. Peterson love to imply that he still was somehow Gerald Bradford's boss, as well as above the then President Cecil Samuelson.

According to Dr. Peterson it might have looked that way on paper, but everyone who actually worked down there knew who was really in charge. That conforms pretty well to your comments on the situation, and honestly it's a pretty depressing image if that's what you guys think a coup actually is.

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 30 minutes ago

Ask your friends at the Maxwell Institute if they had ever seen or heard of such a letter.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 23 minutes ago

I mentioned earlier that I have read the letter and it is not as much of a bombshell as you pretended. I alluded to several aspects of the letter earlier in our conversations, but maybe those allusions eluded you?

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 18 minutes ago • edited

The letter that was packed with apologies for being involved in evil deed unbecoming a Latter-day Saints. When exactly did you read this letter? Was it before or after I called it to your attention? And to actually read it, you would have had to make a trip to Provo from, I assume, Logan.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 13 minutes ago

It has one line where he mentions feeling bad for wanting to see a change in direction (which if you ask him now he’s extremely happy with the direction the university took things). The rest is feeling bad about losing friends, not about “evil deeds,” which he never says in the letter. You’re putting words in his mouth.

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 8 minutes ago

I was not putting words in his mouth. Instead, I was providing my own commentary on his remarks. Post the letter, if you think I have not described it properly.

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 15 minutes ago

He never says “evil deeds” or anything like it. He alluded to the fact that he and a couple of others wanted to see the changes. That has nothing to do with the fact that Cecil Samuelson and others well above the author of that letter wanted the change that took place.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Is the Maxwell Inst. "Mothballing" the Mopologists' Work

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

for what it's worth, I cannot find the quote that you cited, Dean Robbers. A couple of the posts are hidden due to their having been “marked as spam.” Perhaps DCP censored that comment?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply