DiscussMormonism.com

My name is Morgan Davis; I am a fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. I have been with the Institute since its earliest days at Brigham Young University, though I here speak only for myself. I have seen the Institute undergo numerous changes throughout its two decades at BYU during which the leadership of the Institute has always worked closely with the administration of BYU to implement its program. Along the way, numerous leaders of the Church have weighed in on the Institute and our work, both over the pulpit and behind the scenes. Elder Holland’s address to us this past fall was the most recent and arguably the most significant of such statements, because in addition to counsel like what has been given before, it was an explicit and very public apostolic charge. As such, it was specifically directed to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. It was an important moment for us. We were called (again) to do our best work in the most faithful way we know how, and to do it always with an eye single to the glory of God. We understand this, and take it very seriously, which is why I feel the need to address some of what is being said here.

I know that there are still disagreements about the changes that happened in 2012 and thereafter. Much of the disagreement is about how radical the change even was. Was it a traitorous conspiracy to abandon all that the Church and the Saints and the Institute’s donors held dear, or was it a thoroughly vetted albeit difficult administrative decision to make an editorial change that was then blown way, way out of proportion? A disagreement of this sort is one thing. But when it gets escalated into expressed doubts about the faithfulness of those involved to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, that is a serious matter. Since 2012, my colleagues at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute have had to adjust to a slow but persistent drip of public innuendo, back-channel campaigning against the Institute, and direct accusations of faithlessness, nefariousness, or even apostasy by people who ought to know better or by people who don’t know us at all.

For years now it has seemed best not to dignify such accusations with a response, but Elder Holland’s charge to us has changed that, at least for me. We are to “be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh… a reason of the hope that is in [us],” but “with meekness and fear,” a qualifier that for some reason has often been omitted by those quoting this verse like a battle cry. And so I come here in fear and trembling to state what I should not have to state—that the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU is staffed by individuals who without exception are faithful, service-oriented, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with active ecclesiastical endorsements. The Maxwell Institute is not “dangerously close to apostasy,” an accusation that says more about those making it or silently approving of it than it does about any member of the Institute. Contrary to representations being made here and elsewhere, everything I have seen and heard internally at the Institute since Elder Holland’s address indicates to me that the Institute continues to enjoy the strong support and confidence of the leadership of BYU and of the Church who recently weighed in on and approved our revised mission statement, allocated substantial new funding, and are constructing a new building to house us at the center of campus. We continue to offer books, blog posts, a podcast, and scholarship that is consecrated to help the average Latter-day Saint appreciate our tradition more fully, defend it, stick with it, and live it with greater confidence and joy. We see our work as allied with the work of the Religious Studies Center, FAIR Mormon, BYU Studies, Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, Deseret Book, and the Church history department. It is irresponsible to suggest that any of these institutions are off the rails.

We may never agree over the meaning and magnitude of what happened in 2012. But the pettiness and rancor over it have festered for too long. In the potent words of President Uchtdorf (from 2012!), it’s time to “stop it.” We are fellow Saints and ought to show more respect for the covenants and faith that join us to one another in the fellowship of Christ. We all have different perspectives; we approach our discipleship in our individual ways. But we all love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We all love the Book of Mormon for its ancient witnesses of Christ. We all sustain our living prophets and apostles. And we are all anxiously engaged in building Zion. Let that be enough. Let us love one another and forgive one another as the gospel requires. If this plea raises sincere questions for you or prompts a desire for reconciliation, my contact information is available via the Maxwell Institute; please reach out to me privately and we can begin to seek better understanding together.

midgley wrote:...and then eventually to the endorsement of FAIR, Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter Foundation and more recently to the creation by the Brethren, after careful consideration, of a coordinating agency to oversee the work of those three independent agencies, and also to raise and disburse funds to help support their endeavors.

midgley wrote:Those who are not caught up with the dominant secular culture, which is heavily larded with post-enlightenment skepticism about divine things, and who take seriously both the grounds and contents of faith in God, do not need a tether, though they very much appreciate having Apostolic endorsements for their endeavors. Professor Peterson did not call especial attention to or gloat over the carefully worded spanking administered by Elder Holland to the Maxwell Institute

BYU President and the Academic and Associate Academic Vice President were involved in giving Professor Peterson the boot. His eventual firing by email yet when he was on university business in Jerusalem, was Jerry Bradford's decision that he told me did not sit well with the BYU Administration. It also came as a shock to the Brethren.

But the really bizarre attempt to get Professor Peterson to resign was known to at least President Samuelson. How do I know this? I had the memo that President Samuelson wrote in which he ordered Professor Peterson not to publish Gregory Smith essay detailing the apostasy of John Dehlin my hand long enough to scribble down its contents.

Samuelson indicated that he did not agree with, support or approve of anything that Dehlin believes or says, but he believed that the Brethren wanted to deal with Dehlin in their own time and way. And that Professor Peterson could not publish that very long and detailed essay. Instead of resigning, Dan said that we would not publish it.

But what President Samuelson did not know is that one of the Brethren--Elder Packer, for any who are interested, urged us to have Gregory Smith write that essay. And I have it reviewed by several of the Brethren by sending a copy to Elder Bruce Porter, who had constant contact with the Apostles. He was in charge of all the Apostolic committees, including the Area Committee.

And I also sent a copy to the secretary to the Strengthening the Church Members Committee so that the Seventies who constitute that committee comment on it. So President Samuelson flatly wrong about what the Brethren wanted done about Dehlin. The fact is that they wanted us to expose Dehlin's demonic mischief.

What seems to have led to Samuelson knowing about Greg Smith's essay detailing Dehlin mischief, was that Morgan Davis, still and employee of the Maxwell Institute either by accident or intentionally informed a disciple of Dehlin about Greg Smith's essay and Dehlin made a huge fuss about what he called a "hit piece" we were about to publish.

But Samuelson, Bradford, Morgan Davis, Brent Webb, or John Dehlin had read a word of Greg Smith essay. Quite a few of the Apostles and Seventy had read it and made comments about it, and fully approved of our publishing that essay.

Please remember Elder Maxwell's famous statement that Elder Holland quoted--"No more slam dunks." The Brethren have wanted and expected qualified Latter-day Saint scholars to defend the faith, including people like Denver Snuffer, as well as John Dehlin. Some of our most serious problem have always come from those on the fringes of the community of Saints. And the[y] often prefer that we deal with them rather than have to try to do so themselves....

Blair Hodges wrote:Hi, Dr. Midgely. I did not claim one way or another that "the brethren were involved in the purge." For one, because I reject that categorization of events altogether. Secondly, the official position of the Institute, based on the desires of BYU itself, is that it does not generally give specifics about internal personnel decisions. Dr. Peterson's case is no exception.

I recognize some people have been eager to lay snares for me and others at the Institute in a sort of campaign against the Institute. But for all your efforts we're still here doing exactly what the University has either directly asked us to do, or in other cases merely approved of us doing.

I wish you the best in your own corner of the vineyard. And I appreciated your email of apology for your behavior at the lecture itself. Hopefully you can continue in that same spirit moving forward, instead of trying to generate controversy and bad feeling amongst the Saints.

Lemmie wrote:Hasn't Peterson always argued that NO ONE told Greg to write the Dehlin piece? Now Midgley says Packer himself requested it!?

BYU President and the Academic and Associate Academic Vice President were involved in giving Professor Peterson the boot. His eventual firing by email yet when he was on university business in Jerusalem, was Jerry Bradford's decision that he told me did not sit well with the BYU Administration. It also came as a shock to the Brethren.

But the really bizarre attempt to get Professor Peterson to resign was known to at least President Samuelson. How do I know this? I had the memo that President Samuelson wrote in which he ordered Professor Peterson not to publish Gregory Smith essay detailing the apostasy of John Dehlin my hand long enough to scribble down its contents.

Samuelson indicated that he did not agree with, support or approve of anything that Dehlin believes or says, but he believed that the Brethren wanted to deal with Dehlin in their own time and way. And that Professor Peterson could not publish that very long and detailed essay. Instead of resigning, Dan said that we would not publish it.

But what President Samuelson did not know is that one of the Brethren--Elder Packer, for any who are interested, urged us to have Gregory Smith write that essay. And I have it reviewed by several of the Brethren by sending a copy to Elder Bruce Porter, who had constant contact with the Apostles. He was in charge of all the Apostolic committees, including the Area Committee.

And I also sent a copy to the secretary to the Strengthening the Church Members Committee so that the Seventies who constitute that committee comment on it. So President Samuelson flatly wrong about what the Brethren wanted done about Dehlin. The fact is that they wanted us to expose Dehlin's demonic mischief.

What seems to have led to Samuelson knowing about Greg Smith's essay detailing Dehlin mischief, was that Morgan Davis, still and employee of the Maxwell Institute either by accident or intentionally informed a disciple of Dehlin about Greg Smith's essay and Dehlin made a huge fuss about what he called a "hit piece" we were about to publish.

But Samuelson, Bradford, Morgan Davis, Brent Webb, or John Dehlin had read a word of Greg Smith essay. Quite a few of the Apostles and Seventy had read it and made comments about it, and fully approved of our publishing that essay.

Please remember Elder Maxwell's famous statement that Elder Holland quoted--"No more slam dunks." The Brethren have wanted and expected qualified Latter-day Saint scholars to defend the faith, including people like Denver Snuffer, as well as John Dehlin. Some of our most serious problem have always come from those on the fringes of the community of Saints. And the[y] often prefer that we deal with them rather than have to try to do so themselves....

Since 2012, my colleagues at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute have had to adjust to a slow but persistent drip of public innuendo, back-channel campaigning against the Institute, and direct accusations of faithlessness, nefariousness, or even apostasy by people who ought to know better or by people who don’t know us at all.

Gadianton wrote:Yeah sure, every last apostle is tossing and turning over what the new MI is doing. lol. Migdley's personal hobby horse is the center of the universe.

It will be interesting to see if I'm wrong on this, but to me what's most obvious is that if Holland had serious issues with what the MI is doing, I mean, anywhere near as serious as how the Mopologists are reading him, then he'd rip the leaders a new one in private, he wouldn't make a public spectacle of it.

Everything I've seen quoted so far is long the lines of, ra ra Rusty is doing exciting things and we've all got to up our game to keep up.