Nevo wrote:I don't think it's accurate or fair to characterize the Maxwell Institute as "a constant source of trouble (and bad PR)" for BYU and/or the Church. The Maxwell Institute is positioning itself as a leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies and, by and large, is doing great credit to the university. It is not an embarrassment at all. I think its credibility and respectability has only increased since it divested itself of bare-knuckle apologetics/polemics.
You mean increased credibility and respectability outside the church don't you? Because I believe that within the church, for those that even pay attention to what the MI is doing, they are not increasing their standing, especially to anyone over 40.
I would imagine that it's eventually going to cut both ways. Church members lap it up when something Mormon-related gets positive attention from the outside world. I think Nevo is right, in any case. I doubt that anyone apart from the Mopologists' main fan-base regards them as "respectable" in any meaningful way.
"[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
Fence Sitter wrote:You mean increased credibility and respectability outside the church don't you? Because I believe that within the church, for those that even pay attention to what the MI is doing, they are not increasing their standing, especially to anyone over 40.
I mean increased credibility and respectability in academic circles. True, this circle is mostly confined to Mormon Studies nerds at present, but I think the institute's reach is expanding. I think it could become an important intellectual wing of Mormonism.
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:And neither is Dan................
How do you figure that? He is on a paid sabbatical. Those aren't normally offered to professors on thin ice.
But such a perk may be offered to profs who are on the way out and work out a deal that includes a sabbatical. Not saying this is true in Dan's case, but universities have been known to agree to something like this to get rid of a tiresome prof.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Ludd wrote:But if I were to predict what the Q15 and BYU admin are likely to do it would be to get rid of the WHOLE problem, as in getting rid of Peterson and Hamblin and probably the entire MI. BYU went for decades without an MI or anything like it. If I'm not mistaken, there was nothing like the MI when Oakes was President at BYU, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to just get rid of every vestige of what has now become a constant source of trouble (and bad PR) for them.
I don't think it's accurate or fair to characterize the Maxwell Institute as "a constant source of trouble (and bad PR)" for BYU and/or the Church. The Maxwell Institute is positioning itself as a leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies and, by and large, is doing great credit to the university. It is not an embarrassment at all. I think its credibility and respectability has only increased since it divested itself of bare-knuckle apologetics/polemics.
I agree with the basic gist of your statement here. I guess the question I have is whether or not the Q15 is likely to regard a MI "positioning itself as a leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies" as preferable to "bare-knuckle apologetics/polemics." My point was basically that I don't think the Q15 wants BYU to be associated with either one of those two things. But I could be wrong. It could be that they want BYU to take on the role of leading the pack in terms of Mormon Studies. I'm just not sure they really appreciate what that will necessarily mean when it comes right down to it. To be a "leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies" I don't see how they can't start publishing things that will unavoidably come up against the dominant perspectives among the "Brethren". So maybe in 50 years or so, after the current generation of Mormon leadership has shuffled off the mortal coil and been replaced by more progressive-minded folks. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:But such a perk may be offered to profs who are on the way out and work out a deal that includes a sabbatical. Not saying this is true in Dan's case, but universities have been known to agree to something like this to get rid of a tiresome prof.
I hadn't thought about this angle on things. You may very well be on to something here. I have also thought that the way DCP described his "sabbatical" was just a little odd. But as part of a severance package, it makes a lot more sense.
I'm sorry I've just got to say how much I love this quote from Hamblin:
It angers me when my friend Dan is harassed and insulted by anti-Mormons. It angers me even more when it is done by purported LDS.
What the heck is a "purported LDS"?
The Church counts everyone and their maybe dead grandpa as being LDS if their name ever appeared on the records in the last century, but now if Hamblin disagrees with you there is a class of member that isn't actually LDS but only "purported" to be.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:But such a perk may be offered to profs who are on the way out and work out a deal that includes a sabbatical. Not saying this is true in Dan's case, but universities have been known to agree to something like this to get rid of a tiresome prof.
I hadn't thought about this angle on things. You may very well be on to something here. I have also thought that the way DCP described his "sabbatical" was just a little odd. But as part of a severance package, it makes a lot more sense.
I think that Dan is still popular enough with some big donors that it behooves BYU to handle his transition out carefully and quietly. But out he will go, in my opinion. The Church has changed the way it will handle Mormon Studies in the future (as evidenced by the changes at MI), and Dan and the other classic FARMSboys are dinosaurs no longer needed by the Church (if they ever were). Dan's time is over, and I'm sure he knows it.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
cinepro wrote:I'm sorry I've just got to say how much I love this quote from Hamblin:
It angers me when my friend Dan is harassed and insulted by anti-Mormons. It angers me even more when it is done by purported LDS.
What the heck is a "purported LDS"?
The Church counts everyone and their maybe dead grandpa as being LDS if their name ever appeared on the records in the last century, but now if Hamblin disagrees with you there is a class of member that isn't actually LDS but only "purported" to be.
That just takes the cake.
"purported" is just a highfalutin substitute for "so-called".
Remember, though, that Prof Hamblin has a history of creating litmus tests for those who may be entitled to call themselves LDS.
Of course he was less than forthcoming about whether his "test" had the blessing of the brethren or of the membership department.
(yep, still keeping on stirring this particular pot ... )
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Has Mr Hamblin now given up on his chances of getting a pay rise?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Ludd wrote:How could someone be so "righteous" that, after reflecting on what he had said, he would sincerly feel like he needed to apologize for having said the words "go to hell"?
Easily. Nearly all members of polite society can recognize a lapse in propriety, however forgivable, when they see it. The best of them will apologize.
Could be I have "hardened my heart" so much and have become so jaded by obscene language that I've lost the ability to judge what is appropriate and what is not.
I believe that that's the case.
But to me it is more offensive to feel you need to apologize for saying "go to hell" than it was to have said it in the first place.
Then you must be a real peach to be around.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
)