Bill Hamblin: No Apologetics at BYU

[_Kishkumen]

I half thought it was odd that BH would say apologetics didn't have a place at the MI, but he might be sincere. There was, after all, often an attitude of intellectual snobbery among the apologists that they were engaged in highbrow academic work above the heads of the critics and not of interest to the vulgar membership. I was kind of blown away when all of a sudden the old MI was promoted as "the peoples" MI. As I mentioned earlier, there was a grain of apologetics in the Review and there certainly was "attack dog" apologetics, but not in the earliest publication(s), and it's not fair to say that's primarily what the Review did. Certainly, I do not believe the apologetic pieces were necessarily aimed at the vulgar membership to help them, even if those pieces were relevant to the vulgar membership. As you mentioned, that kind of work likely resonated very well with big donors. It seemed to me, the prominence of the place of articles that are rightly apologetic in the spirit of FAIR grew over time.

As usual you bring meat to the table for a serious discussion, Dean.

I implicitly trust the credibility of Hamblin on this point. According to multiple sources, he vehemently opposed the incorporation of FARMS as part of the BYU community. Furthermore, I would contend that FARMS, while appealing particularly to geeks, faithfully pursued the goal of informing the members. Heck, John Gee reviewed amateur LDS educational literature in the pages of the Review. Doubtless the apologists, as bearers of PhDs and as career academics, felt that they should be taken seriously in their scholarly work, but I don't think one can say this was an either/or situation.

FARMS sought to do serious work that would nevertheless educate the membership. Frankly, I think that their rhetoric in this regard was and is entirely genuine. It is, in fact, one of the stronger points they make against the new Maxwell Institute. How many Mormons would rather read about Nahum in Arabia than the dense noodlings of a Nate Oman? The new Maxwell Institute is taking a risk in pursuing academic legitimacy--it risks losing its appeal to middle brow readers.

I'm also not certain Bokovoy's opinion is the only relevant opinion here to the motives of the new MI. Certainly, everyone save a few see a PR problem with BYU and the Church officially endorsing 100-page+ long attacks on the personal credibility of any individual. But there have been exchanges I've seen where it seemed like treating Book of Mormon geography as a real scientific discipline is also a problem. But that's unclear because the focus of the discussion gets lost quickly.

My professional advice as one of the foremost experts on Mopologetics in the entire world is that the apologists quit talking about "apologetics" whether negative or positive, because that's the least likely battle to win. Focus on the place for Book of Mormon archeology within the new MI. Engage the new MI on this publically, and try to avoid derailing the conversation over personal vendetta. Get the new MI on record either a) agree that Book of Mormon Geography is a worthy discipline, and now let's what we can do about getting some papers on it or b) get clear statements as to why it's not, and try to do so without the venom that could make these statements look set up or out of context. Focus on the weakness of Mormon Studies in a careful way, rather than flaunting the weaknesses of classic Mopologetics on a near daily basis, because that's going to stick out in peoples' minds as a much bigger problem.

I don't know, Dean. You do have some real strategic wisdom that Hamblin and Peterson may find useful. The thing is, I know for a fact that the new Maxwell Institute has *not* abandoned the study of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. So, the real points of distinction are the quest for academic credibility and the end of antagonistic apologetics. The key challenge to the new MI is making this enterprise viable in a world of limited financial resources. Yahoo Bot will pay real money for Mopologetic smears of John Dehlin and Laura Compton. Will he pay money to read Ben Park talk about the future of academic Mormon Studies in all its various forms? I rather doubt it.

But you could be right. If one really digs into the specifics of Book of Mormon geography, trying to pin the Maxwell folk down on their personal views concerning Sorenson's work and the future prospects of similar studies... well, that may get some traction. But, one might counter: does BYU need an institute devoted to Book of Mormon geography or is it sufficient to have people on the payroll who do this kind of research? Very few pedagogically-oriented universities such as BYU actually need special, incredibly narrow institutes devoted to hobby topics like Book of Mormon geography. Indeed, I would wager that a "Book of Mormon Geography Institute" would be a laughing stock. It is much better for BYU to take the more subtle tack of employing Mesoamericanists who also happen to write on the ancient world of the Book of Mormon.

You see, this is not just about the credibility of the Maxwell Institute. It is about BYU looking like something much more legitimate than a western Bob Jones U with its own Institute of Creation Science and Edenic Geography. No matter how academically legitimate it could arguably be, a large number of people will laugh it off. Most of BYU's faculty was probably tired of having a booger like classic FARMS hanging out of its nose.

[_Gadianton]

Very few pedagogically-oriented universities such as BYU actually need special, incredibly narrow institutes devoted to hobby topics like Book of Mormon geography. Indeed, I would wager that a "Book of Mormon Geography Institute" would be a laughing stock.

Yes! I think the same, and this is why the apologists need to press the issue. I think the possibility is higher that some of the brethren would be more concerned over the MI considering the historical evidence for the Book of Mormon nothing but a big laugh than they would the MI not wishing to torpedo the next liberal with a blog. So long as the apologists keep fighting for their rights to do "negative apologetics", they easily give the upper hand to the new guard.

You are absolutely right, having a serious arm of the MI doing research to prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient text puts them on the level of "Bob Jones", but there are not a few members out there who will understand this. I can tell you right now, any of my TBM family would understand the new MI choosing not to lambaste church critics because of love and forgiveness and all of that, but if the matter were made very clear, that BYU considered the study of the Book of Mormon as real ancient history to be pseudoscience and not academically fashionable, that they'd have a real problem with that.

[_Kishkumen]

You are absolutely right, having a serious arm of the MI doing research to prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient text puts them on the level of "Bob Jones", but there are not a few members out there who will understand this. I can tell you right now, any of my TBM family would understand the new MI choosing not to lambaste church critics because of love and forgiveness and all of that, but if the matter were made very clear, that BYU considered the study of the Book of Mormon as real ancient history to be pseudoscience and not academically fashionable, that they'd have a real problem with that.

Hmmm. Perhaps. The problem is that there is a difference between Book of Mormon geography and understanding/interpreting the Book of Mormon in an ancient context. Arguably, a faithful Mormon believes in the book's antiquity without needing to prove it and uses the assumption of its antiquity as a way to frame scholarly/apologetic discussions. MI really does not need to pursue the details of Book of Mormon geography to be a faithful voice. Only the Meldrumites, at this point, are really going to push geography as some kind of make-or-break theological issue. In recent years the only reason the classic FARMS crew took up this issue vociferously was specifically to combat the Meldrumites. I rather doubt that even the classic FARMS crew would adopt the tack you are suggesting, at least in such bald terms.

But you are our dean for a reason. Very few people have your keen powers of reasoning and insight into these matters. We will see how it plays out. When your perspective proves right, I'll buy you a drink at the faculty club.

[_ludwigm]

When the Provo Daily Herald published a big, front-page picture of the planned FARMS Ziggurat, which would have been right next to BYU campus ...

Chapter 6. PLANS AND PLANTS, OR THE ADMINISTRATION BLOCK

EVERY STUDENT of human institutions is familiar with the standard test by which the importance of the individual may be assessed. The number of doors to be passed, the number of his personal assistants, the number of his telephone receivers-- these three figures, taken with the depth of his carpet in centimeters, have given us a simple formula that is reliable for most parts of the world. It is less widely known that the same sort of measurement is applicable, but in reverse, to the institution itself.
...
In point of fact you will have discovered nothing of the kind. It is now known that a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse. This apparently paradoxical conclusion is based upon a wealth of archaeological and historical research, with the more esoteric details of which we need not concern ourselves. In general principle, however, the method pursued has been to select and date the buildings which appear 60 to have been perfectly designed for their purpose. A study and comparison of these has tended to prove that perfection of planning is a symptom of decay. During a period of exciting discovery or progress there is no time to plan the perfect headquarters. The time for that comes later, when all the important work has been done. Perfection, we know, is finality; and finality is death.
...
It is by no means certain that an influential reader of this chapter could prolong the life of a dying institution merely by depriving it of its streamlined headquarters. What he can do, however, with more confidence, is to prevent any organization strangling itself at birth. Examples abound of new institutions coming into existence with a full establishment of deputy directors, consultants and executives; all these coming together in a building specially designed for their purpose. And experience proves that such an institution will die.

See PARKINSON'S LAW [AND OTHER STUDIES IN ADMINISTRATION] BY C. Northcote Parkinson for more !

[_Gadianton]

Arguably, a faithful Mormon believes in the book's antiquity without needing to prove it and uses the assumption of its antiquity as a way to frame scholarly/apologetic discussions. MI really does not need to pursue the details of Book of Mormon geography to be a faithful voice.

Oh, I totally agree Reverend. But what you and I think, in my opinion, doesn't matter nearly as much as what the TBMs in the pews think, or what the brethren think. Granted, I only have my gut impulses as to what TBMs think based on my interactions with family members and I could be off here. To clarify a couple of points.

1) I say "Book of Mormon geography" because it's popular subject lately but what I really mean is broadly, any scholarly framing of the Book of Mormon that counts as direct evidence of its antiquity. For instance, Hugh Nibley didn't care for geography, but there is no question that his work was intended as evidence of the Book of Mormon's antiquity. I don't think Nibley had a problem with geography in principle. My gut feeling is the new MI has issues with evidential reasoning of any kind toward the Book of Mormon's antiquity, but not that they don't believe in its antiquity.

2) When I say the apologists should "press the point", I don't mean to repeat what they've already done. Take this statement that I believe to be true for most if not all non-believers: "If you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, then you don't believe in evidence for its history." The apologists press the issue by affirming the consequent: "If you don't believe in evidence for its history, then you don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical." They try to block the position you express above that I quoted from you. That's not what I recommend they do.

My point: For any proposition y = "...x..., then you don't believe in evidence for its history" or q = "....p..., then you don't believe searching for its evidence is prudent" I cannot think of an antecedent (within reason*) that would satisfy the typical Chapel Mormon with y or q. In my visits with family this year, for whatever reason, two individuals on separate occasions brought up Rod Meldrum favorably; not that they are Heartlanders, because they aren't the type I could imagine attending these kinds of conferences to rah rah rah!, but I think they'd have a problem with the MI shutting down any kind of evidential pursuits of Book of Mormon antiquity, if that's what they are doing.


*If the prophet stood up in conference and said "thus saith the Lord, do not pursue proofs for the Book of Mormon because the abounding evidence shall destroy the place of faith" then the TBMs would accept q.

[_Gadianton]

There is a new reply to David on Sic Et Non:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... anger.html

Allow me to correct the author's work according to the recommendations I've made. The author starts out fairly strong, and more or less sticks with the program as I've outlined it.

DB: The Maxwell Institute has not abandoned publishing material that explores the Book of Mormon’s connections with the ancient world.

DCP: No. Not entirely. But, to a striking degree, it has. This is shown, for instance, in the composition of the editorial board for the newly repurposed Mormon Studies Review and in the content of the journals published thus far, in which focus has been placed upon the nineteenth-century context of the Book of Mormon and at least one author has expressly and without challenge denied the existence of the gold plates.

I think he should start by getting the facts on the table and requesting DB to provide a list of materials published to support the Book of Mormon evidentially. Noting the background of the board is fine, but he should be careful about making accusations that will likely be denied, especially when his opponents seem to have the upper hand in public sympathy. But he's on the right track here.

DCP: Publishing Dr. Miller’s book didn’t in any way require abandonment of the traditional subject matter of FARMS and the original Maxwell Institute.

This is an appropriate point to make that sticks with the program. Again, if the new MI denies this, it's a fairly straightforward CFR.

The great Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan (d. 2006) made my point well with regard to one crucially central topic that will illustrate others: “If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen—nothing else matters.”

Most Chapel Mormons likely agree, and it's a fair point to make, except that his interlocutors don't agree here if we make the relevant substitutions to work the statement to an ancient Book of Mormon, and the way in which his interlocutors don't agree is likely slippery, and it won't be a simple matter to pin them down on denying anything material to faith. On the other hand, it's rather straightforward to get the list of publications or intended projects that investigate an ancient Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

The first third of his response is on the right track even if it needs a few adjustments.

But the next two thirds goes off the rails with a protracted defense of the good-naturedness of the old-school FARMS crowd. The author notes:

The narrative of the Reign of Terror at the pre-Maxwell Institute has become so firmly entrenched in certain circles that I don’t expect it ever to go away.

Then why waste time in self-defense on the issue? Just ignore it and stick to the above issue that may be material to general TBM or GA backing of the new regime. The consequences of the perception of the old guard have already been borne out and there is no ground to save. There are other three reasons why he should ignore:

1. It eclipses the relevant issues that put the spotlight on the new MI's mission. The post goes on and on now in self-defense of tone, and this becomes the main issue everyone comments on.

2. The efforts at self-defense are often self-defeating. For instance:

My sensibility was formed from a young age on such publications as National Review, The American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard. They were and are spirited, full of zestful humor and irony — controversial, but not, in my view, mean-spirited

...yeah, in his view.

Even if I were to devote the rest of my days to protecting and hand-feeding baby seals in the Arctic, I doubt that it would have the slightest impact on my reputation

I can't say how this sentence was intended, but here's how many are going to read it. The author zestfully pokes fun at global warming and topics of concern to "liberals" on his blog, and liberals are generally stereotyped by the public for eccentric conservation efforts such as "hugging trees" or "saving whales", and so, this reads like, "Even if I were to do something you silly liberals think is important like feeding baby seals in the Arctic that's, according to you and your big-government president, melting like a popsicle, you still would think I'm a bad person, wouldn't you?"

Since none of this is convincing anyone, just drop it. Focus on the new MI's program and going forward, show that you are an amicable person.

3. Dwelling on the topic inevitably leads to heated tensions and gaskets start to blow, and this doesn't help. Check this comment out by Schryver:

"Notwithstanding the measurable (but, in my judgment, grossly over-estimated) good he has done over the course of his academic career, Richard Bushman is a naïve fool."

I think it's unlikely that the author will publically disagree with outbursts like this from his camp, something that would actually demonstrate a value for tone in a positive direction, and so it's better not drive the conditions that lead to outbursts that no one takes responsibility for.

So I give this post a C-. Had the post ended before the defense of tone, I'd give it a B. With a little more care to get the new Guard's potential problems on the table in workable way, it had potential for an A-.

[Guest]

DB: The Maxwell Institute has not abandoned publishing material that explores the Book of Mormon’s connections with the ancient world.

DCP: No. Not entirely. But, to a striking degree, it has. This is shown, for instance, in the composition of the editorial board for the newly repurposed Mormon Studies Review and in the content of the journals published thus far, in which focus has been placed upon the nineteenth-century context of the Book of Mormon and at least one author has expressly and without challenge denied the existence of the gold plates.

"To a striking degree," says he. Yes, if one shifts focus, the change is going to be noticeable.

I think he should start by getting the facts on the table and requesting DB to provide a list of materials published to support the Book of Mormon evidentially.

In the two years of time the new Institute has been at work? What would such a small data set prove?

You see, DCP and his allies have been reading the tea leaves of things like the Park piece because that's what they have. They essentially have to argue that Park meant something other than what he wrote for lack of any solid evidence that Maxwell Institute is doing anything unacceptable.

If they had sufficient data to make a good comparison, they'd surely make it.

DCP: Publishing Dr. Miller’s book didn’t in any way require abandonment of the traditional subject matter of FARMS and the original Maxwell Institute.

Assuming, and we don't have to, that there has been an abandonment. What has been abandoned is a Farms Review of Books edited by DCP. Was it necessary to abandon that? Well, if your goal is to make sure that no more pieces like the Compton or Dehlin "reviews" see the light of day, then, yes, it is necessary. But that does not mean that the subject of Mormonism and antiquity has been abandoned.

My sensibility was formed from a young age on such publications as National Review, The American Spectator, and the Weekly Standard. They were and are spirited, full of zestful humor and irony — controversial, but not, in my view, mean-spirited

This is the single most revealing statement in the entire post and it well illustrates DCP's huge blindspot. Not one of these publications is an academic journal published by a major university. Not one of these publications is published by a religious sect. Yet, these partisan magazines are the models Peterson immediately goes to when he wants to defend and explain his method for publishing a journal on the campus of a private religious university.

Should anyone, even DCP himself, be the least bit surprised to find that others did not see the FARMS Review as an appropriate journal for a university that takes Zion as its model?

Even if FARMS genuinely sought to address the needs of the members, its incorporation into BYU raised new issues and problems. Criticizing the spirituality of fellow Mormons in the style of the National Review, American Spectator, and Weekly Standard was not a sustainable formula at a Mormon university. The fact that it ended is not a surprise, but it is welcome.

[_EAllusion]

If the leadership wants the appearance of academic credibility for the Mormon faith among scholars, situating apologetics inside of a cultural studies program is their best bet. If it instead wants the appearance of academic credibility for the Mormon faith for the largely lay Mormon audience, then fundamentalist apologetics favored people like Hamblin is instead the best bet.

That doesn't mean you cannot play both strategies, but you need different institutions emphasizing different approaches marketed towards their respective audiences. A single entity encapsulating both will send a confusing message.

[_Kishkumen]

If the leadership wants the appearance of academic credibility for the Mormon faith among scholars, situating apologetics inside of a cultural studies program is their best bet. If it instead wants the appearance of academic credibility for the Mormon faith for the largely lay Mormon audience, then fundamentalist apologetics favored people like Hamblin is instead the best bet.

Yes, but where? If DCP wants to ask what is necessary, then I ask whether it is necessary to publish Mormon apologetics, let alone polemical, attack-style apologetics, at BYU. Are the members less well served by the publication of the journal elsewhere than at BYU? Isn't the Interpreter doing well? Could the Church not continue to direct its members to the resources of the Interpreter, as they have done previously at lds.org?

Heck, if the Church really wants to publish apologetics, then it has the resources to do so, and it should simply undertake the enterprise wholeheartedly. There is no need to compromise the academic atmosphere of BYU by publishing the FARMS Review on campus. If this is about educating the saints, then why not have apologetics published by CES? Or Deseret Book? They could invent a new imprint bearing the FARMS name.

Who really thinks it is necessary for there to be a FARMS Review of Books that includes pieces questioning the motivations, integrity, and spiritual health of other Mormons on BYU campus?

Obviously it isn't. In fact, it is a really, really bad idea. But I should think it is fair to ask why DCP believes it is *necessary* for the MI to have continued doing what it was doing, when there were clearly other options, some of which were arguably superior to the model in place under his tenure as editor of the FROB.

[_Kishkumen]

Look, Midgley said it himself:

The real problem is that the BYU administration was not at all interested in rewarding those who contributed to the Maxwell Institute. Doing Mormon studies and defending the faith has regularly been punished by the BYU administration. Elder Maxwell, at a dinner one evening, told me, and my Department Chair, so that others could hear what was said, that I should keep on doing what I was doing even if "they" never gave me a salary increase. This apostolic admonition actually helped me a bit in my Department. Ralph Hancock has demonstrated in the essay in First Things that what we say is one thing, but what we do is quite different. It is not easy to go up against bureaucrats whose idea of a university is strictly secular. I see this as a source of some of the recent problems.

So, if BYU doesn't want a DCP-style Maxwell and never rewarded it appropriately, then why not take a hint and continue to pursue the Interpreter?

I'll let Ray Agostini, a big fan of DCP, tell it:

Maybe the best thing to do is just leave it alone. Just walk away.
When FARMS began, it was not accepted by the Brethren. It was even seen
as "radical". When the Moroni/Salamander bungle happened, they were even
more turned off. I know this from personal experience,
as I was a FARMS volunteer at the time, attempting to "promote" FARMS,
and I might add, close to walking away from the Church, which eventually
happened. If the Brethren won't listen to FARMS, I thought, then who
will?

I was surprised at the later turn-around, and Elder Maxwell's strong endorsement of FARMS.

Interpreter has basically, I guess, replaced the "old FARMS", but minus the obvious vitriol. Not that vitriol was always a bad thing. It was witty and
compelling at times. I remember, for example, Dan commenting on one
critic of Mormonism that, "he probably studied Mormonism for the better
part of a week". I nearly fell of my chair laughing. The "entertainment
factor" no doubt played a very minor, but important role, as vacuous as
it may seem. But long term, it probably has zero benefit.

The "new MI" is here to stay, there's no doubt about that. Whether its
perspectives will appeal to the majority of Mormons, is yet to be seen.
In ten years from now, we may well be talking about its successes or
failures.

There seems to me now, to be little point in debating on "what could have
been". Let Interpreter speak for itself. If a work is
from God, it will survive. If it's not from God, it won't. Likewise the
"new MI". Either, or both, could theoretically come to total
irrelevance.

And what will that mean to the majority of ordinary, everyday Mormons across the world? Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. But consumed by our own self-importance, we think it means everything. What do converts across the world think? I feel assured that the last thing on their minds is "scholarly debates", but their personal witness of the truth of Mormonism. The battles fought in the corridors of academia, and its petty grudges, mean absolutely nothing to these people.

Let it go.