Building the FARMS Ziggurat

[_Gadianton]

I must admit I was astonished at the idea of a 25,000 square foot building. Perhaps I've been misinterpreting past comments, but I thought FARMS largely consisted of volunteers who would submit articles from their own, perhaps remote, locations. What does FARMS consist of that a 25,000 square foot building would be required to house it? What does it consist of that a set procedure for advancement needs to be spelled out?

Beastie, you really stole my thunder on this one, this is a *very* good question. One that has puzzled me ever since Tom verified the reality of a dream I had a while back regarding a Mopologetic Conference Center.

Let's think about Scratch's statements about the growing power of FARMS and its ability to independently raise funds and gather interest. The immediate focus seems to be "wow! FARMS was able to raise 7 million dollars to build that edifice? That's a lot of money!" But your question draws out the much more profound and intimidating reality, "What was FARMS doing -- what was its operating budget -- such that a 7 million dollar building would be cost effective to accomodate their work load?"

The implication being, 7 million for a building implies many, many millions more raised or forcasted for the goings-on within that building.
When you add that into the equation, then clearly the brethren choked on their oatmeal when they read about FARMS building this edifice in the Church News that morning.

[_Gadianton]

would imagine that there is a very specific, "in writing" "protocol" for giving blessings to apologists.

If this is the case, as some are led to believe, and if the work of apologetics had exploded in this time period as the facts seem to indicate, then there may have been a special room designated in the plans for the proposed edifice, a room dedicated primarily to ecclesiastical intersections with apologetics, such as, giving blessings to apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Trevor:

You're quite right that there have been turf battles about studies of antiquity at BYU, between the classicists and the Semiticists, often involving the relevant folks from Ancient Scripture, and even sometimes including the Mesoamerican archaeologists. They go back to before my own student days.

It's a complex story, and even I probably don't accurately understand it all. I certainly can't explain the sometimes-mysterious status of Ancient Studies.

If this is the case, as some are led to believe, and if the work of apologetics had exploded in this time period as the facts seem to indicate, then there may have been a special room designated in the plans for the proposed edifice, a room dedicated primarily to ecclesiastical intersections with apologetics, such as, giving blessings to apologists.

Good grief.

Gadianton simply has to be acting out some strange and rather pointless satirical charade.

Is it generally accepted at BYU that any professor may use his time on campus to conduct religious research?

Of course. But it isn't universally accepted that research and publication on religious topics should count for annual performance reviews, nor even, curiously, that time spent and publications appearing on Mormon topics shouldn't effectively count against scholarly productivity. Some departments and colleges are very supportive; some are not.

(Nobody is suggesting, of course, that Mormon-related work should be the totality of a history professor's or Hebraist's output. But should it be recognized as potentially legitimate scholarship at all, or not?)

In other words, does BYU view it as an appropriate use of professional time for a Math professor to engage in religious research?

See above.

Incidentally, a response has been produced out of the Statistics Department to the recent Criddle study on Book of Mormon authorship. (I have a copy.) It will shortly be submitted to a mainstream journal. If it's accepted, I can see no reason why it shouldn't count as legitimate scholarship for its authors. But if, as is planned, a more popular and substantially different version of the article then appears in, say, the FARMS Review, will that count, as well? I don't know how the Statistics Department comes down on such matters, but this is the kind of issue that arises.

Was the only contested point who would have the ultimate control over that research?

I don't know precisely what the then-chairman of Ancient Scripture had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty over the Hebraists in Asian and Near Eastern Languages. The response (not only from me but from others, including his dean) was so immediately negative that we never got into the details.

I must admit I was astonished at the idea of a 25,000 square foot building. Perhaps I've been misinterpreting past comments, but I thought FARMS largely consisted of volunteers who would submit articles from their own, perhaps remote, locations. What does FARMS consist of that a 25,000 square foot building would be required to house it?

FARMS is, yes, mostly the product of volunteers, many operating from a distance. But the building wasn't only for FARMS.

We were, at the time, growing very, very rapidly -- for example, in our Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts -- and, knowing that we would get only one shot at this, wanted to make sure that we didn't build a building that would be too small within a short time. And the building was initially conceived as housing not only what has now become the Maxwell Institute (which includes CPART and the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative) but other somewhat hard-to-classify operations like the Smith Institute, the Ancient Studies Institute, BYU Studies, and the New World Archaeological Foundation -- we call them "orphans" -- that have often moved around campus.

We had also, having sponsored numerous conferences on campus, noticed the lack of a certain kind of medium-sized auditorium and certain small-sized seminar rooms, and proposed to include them in our building for general University use as well as our own. And we wanted some small-to-medium exhibit space. (Those needs have now been satisfied, to a degree, in the new Joseph F. Smith Building. But they were pressing at the time.)

What does it consist of that a set procedure for advancement needs to be spelled out?

At the time, we had several people working for us who were, in terms of their qualifications and in terms of our expectations of them (except for teaching), indistinguishable from regular faculty. But they didn't have appointments in regular departments. I had, working with me on METI, a freshly-minted Ph.D. from the University of Utah in Arabic studies and a new Ph.D. from Columbia University (now teaching for the History Department) in the history of Islamic science. My associate director of CPART had a Ph.D. in Semitic studies from Hebrew Union College. (He also had a medical degree, and has now returned to his practice as an eye surgeon.) Also working for me, but now serving in my place as director of CPART, was a doctoral candidate in Syriac studies from the University of Oxford (who has now finished his degree). He helped me to launch both our Eastern Christian Texts and Library of the Christian East series, with the help of a doctoral candidate in patristics from the Catholic University of America, who still works with us. And, of course, we had and have John Gee, with his Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale. And we were thinking about hiring at least one more Ph.D.

Our question was how these people would be treated within the University. Would they be staff, or faculty? If faculty, would they go through standard rank advancement procedures? If so, how? Would they be assigned to regular departments? Or would we play the role of department and college review, before turning their files over to the University review committee and the administration? Would they be eligible for "continuing faculty status" (the BYU near-equivalent of "tenure")? I think that Trevor, at least, will recognize the importance of these and related questions.

[_antishock8]

Brilliant and thoughtful, Mr. Scratch.

[_Inconceivable]

How much would the University seek to control us? Would we have the right to choose our own leaders, or would the University administration name them? We had a board. The University had no boards, except for the overall Board of Trustees. Would our board continue? If so, in what capacity? Who would name the board members? Should the University president at least have representation on the board? Would we be free to contract independently on the printing of our materials.

There is a lot in here.

I find it insightful how much validity you give to your own board compared to the one that lays claim to be the one and only legitimate revelatory conduit from almighty God on this earth.

I think I can understand why you would conclude this board (the revelatory head of BYU) would prove impotent and non representative of your work (although it is somehow necessary to lend your little group validity).

I recall a few others in history that shared many of your challenges, Dan:

King Henry VIII
Joseph Smith III
The Thirteen Colonies
Satan

28 ..When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves..
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28 - 29)

[_Mister Scratch]

Why did we not turn President Hinckley's invitation down? Because, chapel Mormons that we are, we regarded him as the Lord's prophet. We had, however, turned down an earlier invitation from President Bateman. As chairman of the board, I had asked him whether he was inviting us in his capacity as a General Authority or in his capacity as president of BYU. When he unhesitatingly replied that it was in the latter capacity, I responded "Great! Then the answer is No." But he came back the next year with an invitation from President Hinckley, and that, we felt, we could not turn down. For various reasons.

I'm curious: Why did FARMS want so badly to remain independent? As Reynolds pointed out, you guys would have had access to money. Is it as you suggested above--i.e., that you desired to maintain the "polemical" tone of the review, and you worried that BYU and/or the Brethren would put a stop to it?

And, as Professor Peterson helpfully explained in his recent post, there were also apparently some concerns amongst the Brethren about the "polemical" tone of FARMS work.

I offered no such "explanation." I said no such thing.

You told Peggy Fletcher Stack that you worried that it would be stopped.

One "quip" in particular seems to have been the topic of conversation.

I said there was a "quip." I didn't say that the quip was a "topic of conversation" -- it wasn't; it was just a passing quip -- and I didn't say what the quip was about.

Well, I assume it was Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe? Did the Brethren tell you that that sort of thing was unacceptable?

Perhaps this 1995 Protocol helped to redefine or alter that particular practice.

I'm really eager to see a copy of this mysterious document. I hope you find one.

Why don't you track it down? You'd have a far easier time locating it than I would.

The apologists would have had to kneel before the Brethren. Hence DCP's life-altering anxiety and stress.

I don't recall saying anything about either "anxiety" or "stress." I simply said that the affiliation process took enormous amounts of time, and that I found that frustrating.

You said that you considered resigning completely from BYU. That seems to extend well beyond garden-variety "frustration."

[_Mister Scratch]

I admit I don't have the depth of interest in this topic that some do, so I may be asking a stupid question that everyone already knows the answer to, but I'll ask it anyway. The question is triggered by the discussion over who would oversee religious research.

Is it generally accepted at BYU that any professor may use his time on campus to conduct religious research? Was the only contested point who would have the ultimate control over that research? In other words, does BYU view it as an appropriate use of professional time for a Math professor to engage in religious research?

I think that cuts to the heart of the issue, Beastie. It seems that many of the difficulties and stresses during this time period revolved around one simple question: Would BYU pay people to do apologetics? What's unclear is where the lines were drawn: did DCP and other FARMS people argue in favor of paid apologetics? Or, was there tacit understanding all along that paying people to do apologetics would undermine the cause?

Sure: I realize there was probably a lot of run-of-the-mill academic infighting and whatnot, but I'd be willing to bet that the issue of paid apologists was always hovering over everything. (Notice that DCP never clarified as to whether or not "Mormon scholarship" could count for advancement and tenure.)

I must admit I was astonished at the idea of a 25,000 square foot building. Perhaps I've been misinterpreting past comments, but I thought FARMS largely consisted of volunteers who would submit articles from their own, perhaps remote, locations. What does FARMS consist of that a 25,000 square foot building would be required to house it? What does it consist of that a set procedure for advancement needs to be spelled out?

Obviously, it had grown enormously, and its ambitions were huge. That is what I learned as I was piecing the OP together---it appears that the Powers That Be were threatened by FARMS's rapid growth, and they decided that it needed to be reined in.

[_Mister Scratch]

would imagine that there is a very specific, "in writing" "protocol" for giving blessings to apologists.

If this is the case, as some are led to believe, and if the work of apologetics had exploded in this time period as the facts seem to indicate, then there may have been a special room designated in the plans for the proposed edifice, a room dedicated primarily to ecclesiastical intersections with apologetics, such as, giving blessings to apologists.

Actually, I had the reverse in mind. Given Professor Peterson's staunch denials that these blessings ever took place, I would think that the Protocol explicitly forbade setting apart or blessing apologists. I am beginning to think more and more that a lot of the lengthy, five-year discussion involved determining how to preserve "plausible deniability" for the Brethren.

[Guest]

How much would the University seek to control us? Would we have the right to choose our own leaders, or would the University administration name them? We had a board. The University had no boards, except for the overall Board of Trustees. Would our board continue? If so, in what capacity? Who would name the board members? Should the University president at least have representation on the board? Would we be free to contract independently on the printing of our materials.

There is a lot in here.

I find it insightful how much validity you give to your own board compared to the one that lays claim to be the one and only legitimate revelatory conduit from almighty God on this earth.

I think I can understand why you would conclude this board (the revelatory head of BYU) would prove impotent and non representative of your work (although it is somehow necessary to lend your little group validity).

I recall a few others in history that shared many of your challenges, Dan:

King Henry VIII
Joseph Smith III
The Thirteen Colonies
Satan

28 ..When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves..
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:28 - 29)

What???????

And again, What???????

The BYU Board of Trustees doesn't micromanage the University, let alone the University's individual constituent parts (e.g., the College of Nursing, the Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages, Food Services, or the grounds crew).

The question was never whether FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) would be governed by somebody other than, or directly accountable to somebody other than, the overall BYU Board of Trustees. Rather the question was by whom (apart from that overall board) it would be governed and to whom (other than that overall board) it would need to report. It's a simple matter of lines of accountability and administrative organization.

My point about boards was nothing more than this: In the University, colleges and departments don't have boards. The University works through individuals (deans, department chairs, directors) with clear chains of command, not through boards. But we had a collective leadership that didn't mesh well with the University's organizational chart, and this was a problem that needed to be worked out.

Your attempt to depict this as some sort of Promethean rebellion against the divine will is simply ridiculous, if not altogether malicious.

Why did FARMS want so badly to remain independent?

You get one set of questions today. Maybe you'll get another tomorrow, but don't count on it.

Autonomy is easier than entanglement with bureaucracy. Example: Some years ago, we got a call from Mary Miller, at Yale, wanting help with the purchase of an expensive special lens for a photographic expedition to Guatemala, leaving within a week. We weren't yet affiliated with BYU, so I, as chairman of the board, polled my board members, got their approval, authorized the purchase, and directed one of our staff to buy it the next day. However, I feared that such ability to move quickly might be damaged by incorporation into the large bureaucracy that is any modern university. (It turns out, incidentally, that my fears on that score have proved largely unfounded.)

Is it as you suggested above--i.e., that you desired to maintain the "polemical" tone of the review, and you worried that BYU and/or the Brethren would put a stop to it?

I was worried about micromanagerial interference with our editorial decisions. Controversial writing is only a small part of what we do.

I said there was a "quip." I didn't say that the quip was a "topic of conversation" -- it wasn't; it was just a passing quip -- and I didn't say what the quip was about.

Well, I assume it was Prof. Hamblin's "Metcalfe is Butthead" gaffe? Did the Brethren tell you that that sort of thing was unacceptable?

You misunderstand. I referred to a quip made in the course of the affiliation negotiations. It was the only mention of the Review during those discussions, so far as I remember.

You've been seeking to portray the Review as a major reason for the affiliation, and as a principal source of my mythical anxiety and stress over the affiliation. But, though you're as determined as ever in your bizarre theorizing, you're completely wrong. As you typically are.

Why don't you track it down? You'd have a far easier time locating it than I would.

Because I don't know what you're talking about, don't care, don't intend to devote additional energy to your Scratchoscopies, and see no important issue here.

You said that you considered resigning completely from BYU. That seems to extend well beyond garden-variety "frustration."

It was just a passing mood. And I've already explained, several times, what it involved: The affiliation process was so time-consuming and so terribly complex that it brought my research and writing essentially to a halt for a period of two to three years.

If you're not going to believe anything I say, why do you continually pester me with your interrogations?


.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, I had the reverse in mind. Given Professor Peterson's staunch denials that these blessings ever took place, I would think that the Protocol explicitly forbade setting apart or blessing apologists.

He just won't give it up, folks.

Such blessings have never been an issue. I'd never even thought about the notion of such a blessing until this thread. Nobody that I know of has ever sought one, received one, refused one, negotiated about one, spoken about one.

But it goes on and on and on and on, based on, literally, absolutely nothing.

Scratchism on parade.

How can I not find this oddly fascinating?