New MI is doomed because BYU not up to the task

[Guest]

I don't know how it happened, but this thread over on MDD actually has some really interesting things being said. David Bokovoy starts it out by giving his take on the whole MI direction change.

As one who has published both with FARMS and the Maxwell Institute, I will go on record and share my opinion on this matter.

Speaking personally, over the years, I've especially felt the loss of FARMS' Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as edited by Stephen Ricks, and John Sorenson. I'll confess that this has been somewhat of a personal loss for me, in the sense that the scholarship and articles it originally published were what inspired me to pursue my graduate work in the first place and by which I've patterned my own writings, including that little book I put together several years ago with Tvedtnes.

By design, the current Maxwell journal that has taken its place is both non-academic and non-specialized. I hate to make this sound personal, but over the years, those in charge of the journal have solicited articles from me, only to turn them down because they were not written for an "early morning seminary teacher audience." In sharing this information, I'm not trying to be critical, because as a professional religious instructor myself, I sincerely appreciate what they're trying to accomplish. But in my estimation, this transition has left a serious void.

I spoke with Dan about this several years ago, and he shared with me that he, Lou, and George agreed with my assessment, which is why they were beginning to place Journal of Book of Mormon Studies type articles in the Review. This was wonderful while it lasted, but clearly now this will no longer take place, since as I understand it, the Review will be devoted to another purpose entirely.

I would also like to state that I am proud of the two articles I published in the Review. One was an apologetic response to the Bible vs. the Book of Mormon DVD, and the other a polite scholarly exchange with biblical scholar Michael Heiser.

Over the years, I have become less and less interested in traditional apologetics, and because of my wiliness to opening engage scholarly issues in my field that present challenges to various issues connected with the Restoration, I have received my own "wounds," from "friendly fire," the details of which, I have no intention of discussing in public. I will state, however, without trying to be too critical, that I have little confidence in the general abilities of BYU's new direction personnel (speaking as a whole, not of individuals, many of whom if given the chance are more than capable) to seriously engage academic issues pertaining to the Book of Mormon, etc.

This is certainly not the objective of BYU's Religious Education. In fact, given the department's general opposition to scholarship, as well as the general lack of personnel trained in these various fields, I have a hard time seeing how this new direction will take place at BYU in terms of scholarly observations on the Bible, Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. While the MI will hopefully make some important contributions in the future to Mormon studies, sadly, I suspect that most of the quality work in these areas will take place in independent spheres outside of BYU.

Finally, I will also go on record as stating that I am proud to be both a student, and a friend of Daniel Peterson. Both he and his work have had a tremendous impact upon my life, and I believe that over the years, Dan has made outstanding contributions to Mormon studies. In fact, some of my favorite observations that have been made regarding the Book of Mormon have been Dan's.

Italics added by me for emphasis.

[_Cylon]

Brant Gardner agrees, while adding that this change has been in the works since long before the John Dehlin hit piece came to light.

David Bokovoy, on 23 June 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:
By design, the current Maxwell journal that has taken its place is both non-academic and non-specialized. I hate to make this sound personal, but over the years, those in charge of the journal have solicited articles from me, only to turn them down because they were not written for an "early morning seminary teacher audience." In sharing this information, I'm not trying to be critical, because as a professional religious instructor myself, I sincerely appreciate what they're trying to accomplish. But in my estimation, this transition has left a serious void.

That has been my impression, without as much evidence as you have. My own work on the Book of Mormon springs directly from that of John Sorenson and has been bolstered by the kind of work that was done earlier in FARMS existence (and a needed not to Faulconer's book on how to study the scriptures, printed under FARMS). Perhaps because I am so completely focused on the Book of Mormon, I have noticed that the Maxwell Institute's production of really new work on the Book of Mormon has slowed to a trickle.

It is unfortunate that the timing of this change at the Maxwell Institute follows the issue of an article discussion John Dehlin. That has allowed the false impression that the issues surrounding that article caused the current change. Whatever influence it may or may not have had, it cannot be causative of the current change. It has been a change in process for way too long.

While I hold out hope that there will be a place for cutting edge scholarship on the Book of Mormon in the new direction of the Maxwell Institute, the evidence of past redirected efforts is not encouraging.

[_Cylon]

And finally, Kerry Shirts chimes in to absolutely slam Mormon Bible scholarship.

It's also interesting to me that Bradford indicates a desire for taking the studies in a more academic and secular direction? I suspect, rather seriously strongly, that the "secular" arrangement of any studies in the scriptures will not be adequately addressing the available scholarship on the Bible from the secular end of things. The reason? Because it really does undermine our Mormon assumptions about what we think we know what the Bible is and is all about. The secular studies have amassed an absolutely amazing amount of materials that show our Mormon view of the Bible just ain't realistic. It will undermine the what of our testimony concerning the Bible as the church teaches. It will be fascinating to see if the Institution really does give actual secular information, logic and analysis of evidence about the Bible, or will it simply tow the General Conference line of generalities and faith promoting testimonies? The secular side of things concerning the Bible will be a total wash if they try to Mormonize the information as has been done in the past. It is a VERY touchy subject that LDS scholars have, to be quite honest about it, shied completely away from. The very newest approach to the Apostle Paul for instance, Thomas Wayment, "From Persecutor to Apostle, A Biography of Paul," Deseret Book, 2006 is simply atrociously ridiculous when it comes to understanding Paul in context. Wayment Mormonizes Paul to an extreme I have not seen in decades.......secular academic? It is a complete embarrassment. But......he certainly strengthens the faith of the faithful by attempting to show that Paul really was just a very early Mormon in disguise! I was appalled no end that in his forward he claims to have read absolutely everything from the scholars on Paul, and then used absolutely nothing.....er, except the church materials. He wanted to write the very best book on Paul, and all he did was bore his testimony and twisted context to make Paul appear very astonishingly different than any secular study I have ever read. If THIS is going to be the academia coming out of BYU/MI with an emphasis on secular....... they ought to save themselves an absolute ton of embarrassment, fold up the cards and tables, shut off the lights, and just go home. The scholars will absolutely decimate the Mormon scholars if they attempt to Mormonize the secular as Wayment has done, and as he did in "The Life and Teachings of the New Testament Apostles," Deseret Book, 2010. We need far and away more honesty and more rigor when dealing with the Bible than we Mormons ever have done. And I have my very serious doubts it will be done. Just sayin.........

[_Aristotle Smith]

I think my original analysis of the situation was too narrow. In another thread I predicted that apologetics was done for. I think these guys have it right, it's bigger than just apologetics, there will no longer be a place for any serious analysis of scripture from a Mormon perspective.

The people who will be manning NAMIRS will be both uninterested in looking at Mormon scripture and unqualified to do so. Mormon Studies is for the most part about studying everything about Mormons except Mormon scripture. There will be lots of articles on the sociology of Brazilian Primary programs, the history of Relief Society manuals in the South, and demographic studies of church growth in 19th century Nebraska, but there won't be anything having to do with the core of LDS beliefs, the LDS scriptures. In this sense Mormon Studies is the donut approach to studying Mormonism, lots of sweet fluff on the outside, nothing at the core.

But to be honest, this is probably a good thing from the perspective of the LDS church. Critical studies of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham etc. from an LDS persepctive are absolutely devastating to LDS beliefs. In fact, this is probably why most attempts to study scripture critically from an LDS perspective almost always devolve into apologetics. You have to spend so much time shoring up Mormon beliefs via apologetics that there isn't much time or space left over to try and understand LDS scripture.

[_Chap]

More from Kerry Shirts (extract):

... The secular deals with evidence and attempts to come to logical conclusions based on THAT EVIDENCE......it NEVER resorts to spiritual feelings or testimony of what one has been told is THE truth of God. The secular deals with evidence NOT faith. COnclusion must come from the evidence, not conclusions already believed in simply supported by a selective use and analysis of evidence that ONLY CONFIRMS FAITH as our Church Education System does things. The secular will crucify that approach, and in no other field will it crucify it so powerfully or miserably than in the Biblical Studies. I know how that operates I have umpteen thousands of articles from the Bible scholars and their analysis and rigorous use of ALL relevant languages to come to an understanding. We cannot even begin to climb into the arena with them yet, but we already think we have the right answers! Our problem, unfortunately is that we are taught what to think, not how to think in our church. This is not a criticism, it is an observation. We are then told specifically WHICH elements are to be in a testimony of the truth, and are expressly encouraged to do everything in or power to find the truthfulness of that in or testimonies. This is precisely why when I have tried to share some of the fascinating, interesting, intriguing evidences and scholarship on the Bible by the actual experts and scholars, I am so powerfully lambasted as being an apostate, or falling away from the Spirit and Heavenly Father is VERY displeased with me, etc. and etc. Because we are not used to seeing the evidences that exist for one thing, and have never even heard of the actual scholarship, because the church has kept us so doggone busy in telling us what to think from ITS OWN INTERPRETATION ***ALONE*** ALL ELSE is lesser than in truth. THAT is the assumption, and the WHAT of our thinking....

Gosh. Especially bolded sentence ...

[Guest]

Perhaps the bigger picture is this:

FARMS/MI under the past management has done more financial damage to LDS Inc by way of lost tithe payers than it as done either good in retaining or good in not affecting the established tithe payer base?

The return on investment has been dismal to say the least. Any well educated business person knows when to cut their losses.

What a horrible chapter in the book of accomplishments in Daniel's life.

I will miss him as he did far more to help us exmormons bleed the beast than the sum of all of our efforts.

Fortunately his cancer will continue to eat away at the belly of the beast for at least a year and into the future when an unwitting member with doubts stumbles upon this chapter in Dan's life.

Who knows? Perhaps one day Daniel, like many other past staunch defenders, will finally embrace the reality that he was defending a destructive cult.

Dan, when you do pull your travel trailer into Shady Acres, we will treat you the same as the others here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Yeah, I sympathize with David B. The Church has never really been sympathetic to "so-called intellectuals," but his comments make me realize something, which is that we've basically got to concede that we don't really know why these changes were made. I'm sure that a lot of us would like to believe that this happened mainly because the GAs got sick of all the ad hominem material that was present in the articles in the Review. John Dehlin says he has reasons to believe that this is the case. That said, I think that Bokovoy raises some interesting points, too, which is that Church Admin. may have wanted to "water down" and/or "correlate" the stuff coming out of the Maxwell Institute. This wouldn't necessarily be the nasty, "hit piece" type material--it could very well be the stuff that is more "scholarly," along the lines of what Bokovoy is describing, since "some kinds of truth aren't very useful." Regardless, I think we can safely say that the Brethren ulitmately felt that the DCP-led Mopologists were doing more harm than good, but beyond that, no one--including the Mopologists themselves--seems to know exactly why these changes were made.

[_the narrator]

Mormon engagement with contemporary Biblical criticism is long overdue. Based on a few I do know at BYU--and based on Hamblin's description of Bradford's vision--I have hopes that the MI can and will be doing just that.

[_Cylon]

But to be honest, this is probably a good thing from the perspective of the LDS church. Critical studies of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham etc. from an LDS persepctive are absolutely devastating to LDS beliefs. In fact, this is probably why most attempts to study scripture critically from an LDS perspective almost always devolve into apologetics. You have to spend so much time shoring up Mormon beliefs via apologetics that there isn't much time or space left over to try and understand LDS scripture.

Very insightful, Aristotle. Also interesting that Kerry Shirts agrees with you, at least on the results of critical studies to scripture, as the quote that Chap posted demonstrates. I'm actually quite surprised at how candid he is, and also shocked that as yet no one has called him on the carpet for being an apostate for stating those views. I suppose they've still got time, though.

Yeah, I sympathize with David B. The Church has never really been sympathetic to "so-called intellectuals," but his comments make me realize something, which is that we've basically got to concede that we don't really know why these changes were made. I'm sure that a lot of us would like to believe that this happened mainly because the GAs got sick of all the ad hominem material that was present in the articles in the Review. John Dehlin says he has reasons to believe that this is the case. That said, I think that Bokovoy raises some interesting points, too, which is that Church Admin. may have wanted to "water down" and/or "correlate" the stuff coming out of the Maxwell Institute. This wouldn't necessarily be the nasty, "hit piece" type material--it could very well be the stuff that is more "scholarly," along the lines of what Bokovoy is describing, since "some kinds of truth aren't very useful." Regardless, I think we can safely say that the Brethren ulitmately felt that the DCP-led Mopologists were doing more harm than good, but beyond that, no one--including the Mopologists themselves--seems to know exactly why these changes were made.

Good point. That sentiment doesn't seem to fit very well with the unbridled glee you're supposed to be having as a result of this whole thing, though.

[_Kevin Graham]

Isn't it amazing how everyone is attacking not only Bradford, but the future scholars who will be running Maxwell? Just how in the bejeezus can anyone say their scholarship will prove "uninteresting"? This is a purely emotional judgment call coming from the disgruntled ex-employees. Of course they'd love for this to be true, but why is everyone just taking this for granted?

Just because Maxwell will no longer devote itself to an ad hominem approach of attacking the messenger, this somehow translates to an "uninteresting" piece of scholarship?

Talk about the mother of all non sequiturs.