DiscussMormonism.com

Interesting quote from a Maxwell Institute representative:

Peterson has been critical of the changes, which he says includes a significantly reduced emphasis on apologetic research. That is problematic, he says, because the Institute has been specifically charged with "describing and defending the Restoration."

Maxwell Institute officials disagree, indicating that widespread assumptions that "the change of editorship we have recently announced for the Mormon Studies Review signals some kind of fundamental rejection of apologetics is incorrect."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7655 ... egins.html

Interesting. So, why is Dr. Peterson going out of his way to contradict representatives from the Lord's University? There was further relevant commentary on this at the ironically named Mormon Dialogue board:

DCP wrote:I'm at a loss to know where Maxwell Institute apologetics will appear. The flow of Maxwell Institute books has slowed to a trickle. The Institute's Journal has done some apologetics, but not much. It appears twice a year, with fairly short articles. Studies in the Bible and Antiquity appears once annually and does little or no apologetics. The Review was far and away the main venue for apologetics, and I was informed that it will be down for at least eighteen months; there's not even a new editorial team in place. Frankly, I'll be slightly surprised if it actually ever appears again, but would be pleased to see it do so.

And then what will count as apologetics under the "new course"?

I have reason to believe, though I would be happy to see otherwise, that it won't be anything that most people would recognize as actual apologetics.

Time will tell.

Scott Lloyd wrote:I asked Joe about it.

He said he obtained the quote in connection with an earlier story he did, the one that appeared on Thursday in advance of the FAIR Conference, headlined "Apologists gather, but they are not apologizing."

The Maxwell Institute was very reluctant to talk to him in connection with that article but eventually gave him the comment, not from Jerry Bradford and not for individual attribution to anyone in particular.

He did not find a place for it in his Thursday story, but when it came time to write the wrap-up on the FAIR Conference, there seemed to be a crying need for some sort of input from the MI folks. That was the only thing he had, so he went with it.

ERayR wrote:Only that much for an expenditure of how much money. Please somebody do a cost - benefit analysis.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/585 ... her-stuff/

It seems to me that the "classic-FARMS" sympathizers are really working hard to make the Maxwell Institute look bad: they are claiming that Bradford & Co. have thrown in the towel and have forfeited their calling to "defend the Restoration"; and here is ERayR insisting that they dig more deeply into the way the money is spent. (Hmmm? Why does this sound familiar?)

Anyhow, I found this interesting in light of the discussion that's been ongoing in response to DCP's FAIR talk. I wonder how long it will be until more people are openly willing to admit that the main difference that everybody is dancing around is one of tone and style of response? Probably the MI *will* do apologetics; it just will be more akin to what you see from people like Quinn, Bushman, Givens, and Bokovoy--in other words, one that isn't based on mean-spiritedness, paranoia, and war tactics.

Based on DCP's quote above, though, it seems like the Mormon Interpreter crew already has its strategy in place: they are going to just dismiss everything apologetic that the MI puts out and say that it's not "real" apologetics.

Scratch, I have been on vacation and may have missed this. If you or someone else has already commented, please accept my apology. Who has been called as the new editor to take DCP's place? Or has that happened yet?

Has Yahoo Bot kept his promise to stay away from MD&D after he was thread-banned for criticizing Will? If so, then is there anyone left at MD&D to point out how odd it is for them to so stridently attack BYU professors and administrators like this?

Doctor Scratch wrote:It seems to me that the "classic-FARMS" sympathizers are really working hard to make the Maxwell Institute look bad: they are claiming that Bradford & Co. have thrown in the towel and have forfeited their calling to "defend the Restoration"; and here is ERayR insisting that they dig more deeply into the way the money is spent. (Hmmm? Why does this sound familiar?)

Anyhow, I found this interesting in light of the discussion that's been ongoing in response to DCP's FAIR talk. I wonder how long it will be until more people are openly willing to admit that the main difference that everybody is dancing around is one of tone and style of response? Probably the MI *will* do apologetics; it just will be more akin to what you see from people like Quinn, Bushman, Givens, and Bokovoy--in other words, one that isn't based on mean-spiritedness, paranoia, and war tactics.

Based on DCP's quote above, though, it seems like the Mormon Interpreter crew already has its strategy in place: they are going to just dismiss everything apologetic that the MI puts out and say that it's not "real" apologetics.

I think it is fairly clear that a lot of the response from the classic-FARMS crew is ego driven. They invested so much of themselves in this effort, fought for it, and defended it, that it was incomprehensible to them that the rug could be pulled out from underneath them like that. So they are lashing out, accusing others, Gerald Bradford in particular. It is, quite simply, an ugly mess. The more they have spit out into the internetz, the more Bradford's decision looks justified if not late in coming.

Cicero wrote:Has Yahoo Bot kept his promise to stay away from MD&D after he was thread-banned for criticizing Will? If so, then is there anyone left at MD&D to point out how odd it is for them to so stridently attack BYU professors and administrators like this?

I still post over there but I'm not sure I would be the best person to get involved in the politics of BYU, DCP & Co., etc.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Probably the MI *will* do apologetics; it just will be more akin to what you see from people like Quinn, Bushman, Givens, and Bokovoy--in other words, one that isn't based on mean-spiritedness, paranoia, and war tactics.

Based on DCP's quote above, though, it seems like the Mormon Interpreter crew already has its strategy in place: they are going to just dismiss everything apologetic that the MI puts out and say that it's not "real" apologetics.

Well, he might be right. After 30 or so years of the FARMS-style pieces, it might very well be that most people wouldn't recognize anything that doesn't attempt to destroy the perceived enemy at the gates as apologetics. The fact that this style of apologetics is becoming more and more impotent all the time is irrelevant to DCP and crew, however.

Cicero wrote: If so, then is there anyone left at MD&D to point out how odd it is for them to so stridently attack BYU professors and administrators like this?

The decision about the sacking of Dan is not church related but administrative. Some at the institute wanted a change in direction. It happens all the time in academic circles. It is perfectly okay to be critical of other professors or administrators who made this decision. The LDS church is not a cult after all.

Kishkumen wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:It seems to me that the "classic-FARMS" sympathizers are really working hard to make the Maxwell Institute look bad: they are claiming that Bradford & Co. have thrown in the towel and have forfeited their calling to "defend the Restoration"; and here is ERayR insisting that they dig more deeply into the way the money is spent. (Hmmm? Why does this sound familiar?)

Anyhow, I found this interesting in light of the discussion that's been ongoing in response to DCP's FAIR talk. I wonder how long it will be until more people are openly willing to admit that the main difference that everybody is dancing around is one of tone and style of response? Probably the MI *will* do apologetics; it just will be more akin to what you see from people like Quinn, Bushman, Givens, and Bokovoy--in other words, one that isn't based on mean-spiritedness, paranoia, and war tactics.

Based on DCP's quote above, though, it seems like the Mormon Interpreter crew already has its strategy in place: they are going to just dismiss everything apologetic that the MI puts out and say that it's not "real" apologetics.

The problem was not with Dan's firing. The problem is how it was done: by email when he was out of the country. For some strange reason this is being overlooked by people here. It is not a good way for a church related organization to do its internal business. People deserve more respect than to be fired by email when out of the country.

And that was the point.

From the link:

Daniel C. Peterson, former editor of "Mormon Studies" for the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU, took advantage of the spotlight afforded to him as the concluding speaker during Friday's final session of the 2012 Conference of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) to announce the formation of a new resource for those interested in scholarly perspectives on the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (www.mormoninterpreter.com) is intended as a "nonprofit, independent, peer-reviewed educational journal" focused on LDS scriptures, Peterson said.

"We will exist primarily online," said Peterson


I predicted that one on MDD. It is effective and cheap and can rely on donations. Good work, Dan.

why me wrote:The decision about the sacking of Dan is not church related but administrative.

why me wrote:The problem was not with Dan's firing. The problem is how it was done: by email when he was out of the country... It is not a good way for a church related organization to do its internal business.

..........................................................