Top 3 Challenges for an Old Guard Maxwell Institute reboot

[_Gadianton]

Challenge #3: tone and controversy

Now this isn't as straightforward as some may think. We've seen the Old Guard has a substantial fan base and there is a market for "polemics", and we have concrete proof now that the Brethren have on occasion called in to order for takeout. The problem arises in degree with personal antics, and distinctively, when efforts become collaborative with other organizations and now everyone in the effort is in some way affiliated. Case in point is certain research on the Book of Abraham where a junior scholar had serious backing from several parties, and chose to engage in dicey antics on this board. The current director at that time also posted here, and when the accusations arose, "hadn't seen those posts" called into question. A director who *does* see those posts, and understands the prudence of gently pulling his men aside and offering senior wisdom about knowing when to disengage, has a better chance at retaining power in an organization that is closely affiliated with other organizations. The young scholars ought to get nervous when "the boss is watching", and quickly clean up their acts and hope they don't get into trouble. Instead, it seems that the entire chain of command feels empowered to be as mouthy as possible when they think a senior officer is watching what they're doing. But troublesome as this may be, none of it is nearly as important as other more vexing matters, in particular, the challenges associated with the ultimate challenge: Challenge #1.

Challenge #2: demand for content

Dennis Horne and associates are absolutely right when they question the product of the New MI over at Interpreter as anything the typical member might relate to or would want to own for themselves. But that doesn't necessarily mean the product of the Old Guard is much better. The main thing the Old Guard has going for it is that their product is more conservative -- the praise they get at Interpreter is rarely focused on the details of a given article, but the comments come in to either back the Old MI politically or to question articles that don't quite toe the line. By far, the biggest demand is for pieces that attack the ideology of other Mormons. But even then, only some of the articles attacking other Mormons or even critics, for that matter, get the hive to rally. Several aggressive articles by Midgley and Smoot don't seem to have moved anyone. Interestingly, the fact that these kinds of articles are their showpieces make for a major problem, but this problem is a matter for discussion in the ultimate challenge: Challenge #1.

Even in the old days, FARMS had serious content problems. The printing of Nibley books brought them to fame, but were these read or shelved away as trophies? From there, their momentum came in responses to old-school anti-Mormons, and oddly, critiquing orthodox Mormon culture: railing on board games and books published independently by members. Sure, they also had "scholarly" articles on the Book of Mormon. But these got very technical and would run on forever, and unless you're one of 10 fevered geography buffs out there, nobody ever read that stuff. Interpreter is pursuing some interesting content variety: stalactite science and Lindsey's reviews of Chinese sci fi -- let's give credit where it's due for expanding their horizons. But this stuff doesn't seem to be a hit with their own base, let alone have a chance with the "typical member". Perhaps they need to read the conservative LDS trash E-zines, and figure out what stuff the members are interested in, and try to up the game on that kind of content?

Challenge #1 or The Ultimate Challenge (as it's been referred to):

Poor fit for a University, especially one like BYU.

Now don't make assumptions about what I'm going to say here -- I've already covered "tone". FARMS was NEVER a great fit for BYU. BYU was a fantastic place for a few rogue intellectuals to get together and try something new. They had the scholarly knowledge, the visibility (the BYU), and trade knowledge -- stuff like, how do you publish a book etc? -- to get something started. But beyond that, FARMS never grew beyond an on-campus clubhouse. There was never any connection at all between what it did and the surrounding university it was part of. It was more of a parasite on the reputation of BYU as the Lord's University to establish credibility.

What kind of a connection am I speaking of? Let's start with the most obvious, what the mopologists are crowing loudest about: Defense of the Church.

Demanding that BYU defend the Church is one of the great exercises in mental contradiction of our age. You CAN'T defend the Church from BYU because of the information stranglehold the university has upon the content one would defend against. Anything at all questionable either doesn't exist, or is held under lock and key at the library. The computers on campus are filtered and block out anything critical of the Church. Certainly, there are no classes that would teach anything that would give a student a clue as to what, or how to defend the Church against something. In fact, many a BYU bishop would likely recommend staying away from the unique content FARMS produced. There is a huge socially-reinforcing stigma about intellectual curiosity related to faith at BYU, and most members believe it is a commandment not to even read the stuff that the Old Guard thinks that members are bound by covenant to defend against in the first place. That's the base of the iceberg, but there's more. The specific type of defense against attacks in social media and non-scholarly publications wouldn't typically require university resources even if BYU wasn't 1984 in real life. This is stuff that pretty much anyone can do anywhere, as Interpreter is proving. Let's say I'm the Church, and I have two organizations, one that needs university resources to function and one that doesn't. If Interpreter can respond to John Dehlin just fine without a university, then why not keep it that way? There's only one response: the parasitical (yet self-contradictory) official endorsement of the defense originating from BYU.

Even back in the day, the more serious scholarly Book of Mormon research that the Old Guard complains the new MI doesn't do, wasn't ever actually done back then "at BYU" either. It was done only, as a hobby, by certain professors. Another BYU-specific challenge is that it's not a real graduate school. But because of the stigma of playing with fire, anything remotely apologetics related only happened in one or two graduate level special topics courses -- I'm talking about regarding the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon geography; stuff requiring Near East studies background but also requiring initiation into criticisms of the faith. And so there never was anything close to a curriculum at BYU that had anything to do with even the most serious content that FARMS produced. Students found their way to FARMS through the underground.

And so the number one challenge to a direct, "faith-defending" institution using historical-critical methods for scholarly work, while countering anti-Mormonism through blogging, is that such an institution functioning within the walls of the most draconian university on the planet, is quite literally a contradiction that can exist only for parasitical official endorsement, and it has only one place that it can go: Nowhere

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Dean,

Excellent post. It will take a while for me to digest all the great observations and information.

[_kairos]

The MI faces an impossible situation-The truth of Mormonism will be fatal if published; faked truth will not fly with its stated mission- what is the MI to do? if i were working there i would look for another job! unless the FARMERS are reinstated- they care not but for defense of Mo'ism at all costs!