The new Maxwell Institute: Internet vs. Chapel Mormonism

[_Gadianton]

I'm less interested in all the specific reasons why the MI has halted its current product line, and most interested in what's next. It's always been difficult for me to see to what degree the MI has acted on behalf of the brethren and to what degree it has been tolerated in exchange for it's ready presence to fill a void. I'm being honest here when I say I have no idea what the truth is on this matter. Sometimes it seemed like a compromise but other times it seemed more or less commissioned, and what's at stake is whether or not the official sanction from the brethren, through BYU and down to the MI, has authorized Internet Mormonism as true. If the brethren were pulling the strings all along, they kept behind the scenes as a matter of caution. If not, it could be that they used what was available with many regrets along the way, and therefore never vocally endorsed anything for this reason.

Either way, one thing I think is indisputable at this point, and that is the very next issue of the new Review will define the Church's doctrinal position. And that's because for starters, no one can possibly believe the brethren are ignorant of what's going on in the world of LDS scholarship like they may have been twenty-five years ago. Also, as the presses have been stopped and the old guard has parted ways, the new guard will have no history, no bargaining clout, and their very first publication will be teaming with with GA oversight. I'm not saying the GA's will tell them exactly what to write, but the GA's will approve every board member, every contributor, and for at least the first edition, they will digest and either approve or disapprove every single essay printed. And therefore, this first edition will reflect what the Brethren deem as doctrinal. And to be sure, the GA's commissioned for the review task will reflect the wishes of the First Presidency, there is no chance of a rogue GA or clique of GAs setting up their own hobby-horse institution. No mistakes will be made.

The announcement on the MI website came three days before Romney's nomination. I doubt we'll see any movement until after elections, and likely not until Monson has passed on and the new First Presidency is strongly positioned. And then, who knows, we may not ever see any movement at all. Well, I give that at least a 15% chance. Another strong possibility is that there will be no tier 3 apologetics, tier 2 and 1 only, and that it will not be allowed to contradict Chapel Mormonism. Of course, another very strong scenario is that the Tier 2 will be Mormon Studies in the postmodern "Yale-School" "celebratory" (to borrow Kish's term) fashion and that will vindicate Internet Mormonism officially. Internet Mormonism could also be vindicated if evidence-based tier 2 scholarship is promoted that frames Mormonism on Internet Mormon foundation like the LTG etc. If Abraham scholarship is published that implicitly denies Joseph Smith straightforwardly interpreted an Egyptian document then I think that means Internet Mormonism wins. You get the idea.

In my mind the next edition of the Review will settle the matter as to whether the Church is led by Chapel or Internet Mormon leaders. I will read every essay of the next Review carefully, and make my decision. If it turns out the Church leaders are now Internet Mormons -- a very likely scenario -- then I will no longer chastise Internet Mormons online for contradicting the brethren. If it turns out the brethren are really Chapel Mormons, well, it's very possible the opinions of critics will be the least of the worries Internet Mormons will have. Of course, there is also the likely possibility that the presses will halt indefinitely, or that only tier 1 scholarship is allowed at this point (scholarship which cannot by definition imply anything about church doctrine).

[_Tim]

Aristotle Smith and I were talking about this and he pretty well convinced me that this means that BYU has chosen to go the Yale route. Tough to say what the church itself will do. It could eventually mean a formal separation between the school and the church.

But BYU's path has been chosen. Expect it to start teaching a non-literal approach to LDS scriptures and the Bible.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Tim,

Do you think the Church could possibly be unaware or fully uninvolved with the change in direction? And what about all the hardcore, Chapel Mormon religion teachers at BYU, are they excluded from the equation? if so, then this would be a coup rather than a top-down re-org. I just have a hard time believing a coup would happen three days before Romney was formally nominated, with no involvement from the SLC power-brokers. In other words, I'm not questioning the Yale turn, it seems to me that is the most likely option in fact, but I question that it will happen without rather explicit endorsement from the brethren. The Church's new business ventures, the decline of new-member revenue streams, and a growing political footprint go hand in hand very well with intellectual blustering divorced from real world consequence that comes close to being accepted by the academy. I mean, the Church is best served by an explicit or implicit denial of its history and its doctrine, that is what the GBH platform was all about in fact, and it all may be leading up to this. So, if the Yale route is in the cards, I think it reflects the brethren's attitudes as informed by an army of market researchers and advisers, and we can consider the Church leaders Internet Mormons. Another way of saying it is, the brethren are all too aware of the LDS scholarly/apologetic climate today, and if the Yale turn goes down, it's not without a nod of approval from the brethren.

[_bcspace]

Either way, one thing I think is indisputable at this point, and that is the very next issue of the new Review will define the Church's doctrinal position. And that's because for starters, no one can possibly believe the brethren are ignorant of what's going on in the world of LDS scholarship like they may have been twenty-five years ago. Also, as the presses have been stopped and the old guard has parted ways, the new guard will have no history, no bargaining clout, and their very first publication will be teaming with with GA oversight. I'm not saying the GA's will tell them exactly what to write, but the GA's will approve every board member, every contributor, and for at least the first edition, they will digest and either approve or disapprove every single essay printed. And therefore, this first edition will reflect what the Brethren deem as doctrinal. And to be sure, the GA's commissioned for the review task will reflect the wishes of the First Presidency, there is no chance of a rogue GA or clique of GAs setting up their own hobby-horse institution. No mistakes will be made.

The true test of all this is will be:

1) Different from existing LDS doctrine
2) Published by the Church and not, say, BYU

[_Gadianton]

Thanks for the comments BCSpace.

But here's a question for you:

Do you think the new MI will have a great deal of autonomy to publish material the Brethren deem to be in conflict with "existing LDS doctrine?" If they do, does that mean the Brethren are in apostasy?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi Tim,

Do you think the Church could possibly be unaware or fully uninvolved with the change in direction? And what about all the hardcore, Chapel Mormon religion teachers at BYU, are they excluded from the equation? if so, then this would be a coup rather than a top-down re-org. I just have a hard time believing a coup would happen three days before Romney was formally nominated, with no involvement from the Salt Lake City power-brokers. In other words, I'm not questioning the Yale turn, it seems to me that is the most likely option in fact, but I question that it will happen without rather explicit endorsement from the brethren. The Church's new business ventures, the decline of new-member revenue streams, and a growing political footprint go hand in hand very well with intellectual blustering divorced from real world consequence that comes close to being accepted by the academy. I mean, the Church is best served by an explicit or implicit denial of its history and its doctrine, that is what the GBH platform was all about in fact, and it all may be leading up to this. So, if the Yale route is in the cards, I think it reflects the brethren's attitudes as informed by an army of market researchers and advisers, and we can consider the Church leaders Internet Mormons. Another way of saying it is, the brethren are all too aware of the LDS scholarly/apologetic climate today, and if the Yale turn goes down, it's not without a nod of approval from the brethren.

I wonder if we are perhaps being a bit wrongheaded in assuming that the Brethren actually even care that much about scholarship. Recall that BKP--next in line to be prophet, btw--once said that "so-called intellectuals and scholars" were to be ranked right alongside "Feminism" and the "gay and lesbian movement" as one of the Top Three Evils facing the Church.

We know, too, based on things that Mopologist leadership has said that the current MI Administration wanted to do away with "apologetics." Does this mean that the Brethren wanted to do away with "apologetics"? Drawing on things I've observed, things I've been told, and on my extensive expertise in this field, my answer is, "Yes." You pointed out the fact that the plug was pulled a mere three days prior to the announcment of Romney's candidacy. We (well, I, anyhow) have known for a while that there were serious concerns amongst the Brethren about the tone of some of the "apologetic" articles. The "ten year battle" that was mentioned by Hamblin was probably referring to the question of whether or not the Brethren and BYU would continue to allow this brand of Mopologetics to be published under the Church's imprint. Clearly, the answer was, "No."

But this doesn't address what you were getting at, which was, "What's next?" I don't know that I can answer that in an affirmative way, but what I think we can definitely say is what *won't* be next, and that's controversial hit pieces, smear campaigns, and attack articles. "Mormon Studies" is non-controversial and more easily digestible in the marketplace of ideas, whereas old-school Mopologetics is really just for the hardcore, pissed-off fan base.

[_bcspace]

Thanks for the comments BCSpace.

But here's a question for you:

Do you think the new MI will have a great deal of autonomy to publish material the Brethren deem to be in conflict with "existing LDS doctrine?" If they do, does that mean the Brethren are in apostasy?

Not being affiliated with BYU, I don't know. I'm not aware there was much, if anything, they published (advocated) that was in conflict with LDS doctrine. I do believe the Church does want more direct control of the message coming out of there and it's obvious in some of the wording on MI regarding the DCP issue. From what I've seen, not too much since I don't follow FARMS/MI, I've not sensed the message was somehow tainted in the first place.

It also could merely have been an internal academic putsch. DCP has seemed relatively uninterested and disconnected from the board, being away all the time, and that makes one politically vulnerable because personal connections are harder to keep up. In this case, Bradford is using the aegis of the Church to justify his actions making it look like the Church wants more control.

I am probably two or three steps removed from BYU internals which means it's difficult for me to get more than whispers of rumors if I try real hard (I don't). Where the rubber hits the road on LDS doctrine is far from the MI. For the Church, their apologists are the average active members and they have been highly successful by and large.

[_Ludd]

First off, it's interesting to see the entire triumvirate of Scratchism (Gadianton, Kishkumen, and Doctor Scratch himself) active in several of these recent threads.

As for the "new" MI: I don't think either "internet" or "chapel" Mormons will win the day. Rather, I think the growing voices of secular humanism, as practiced by the majority of exmormons (including myself, I might add) will triumph over the naïve approaches typified in the past by both the internet and chapel Mormon factions. How long they will be permitted to act unimpeded by the "old guard" in SLC remains to be seen. But I do think they'll be able to work long enough to establish a good foundation for true Mormon Studies, even if they are ultimately "shown the door" as a last-gasp effort of the BRM/BKP faction in SLC. But, by then, it will probably be too late. The seeds will have been planted and begun to take root among the "rising generation" of BYU students. Eventually, sheer numbers will win out.

[_Aristotle Smith]

In case you had not seen it Gad, here's a length to a lengthy set of predictions I made. The predictions cover both DCP's new crew and the new crew at Mormon Review:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24439

The key for me is that the fight over FARMS/NAMIRS has never been about Chapel vs. Internet Mormonism. Both sides have always been 100% Internet Mormons. The fight has been between liberal Internet Mormons (as represented by the bloggernacle and by the new NAMIRS crew) and the conservative Internet Mormons (as represented by DCP and the old FARMS/NAMIRS crew). In short, the liberals have won.

Neither conservative nor liberal Internet Mormons have any desire to defend traditional Mormon beliefs wholesale. The difference is subtle, but conservative internet Mormons want to conserve some Mormon distinctives while liberals are more willing to defend a non-Mormon Mormonism. It's easiest to see this with something like the Book of Mormon. Both groups reject traditional Mormon beliefs about the Book of Mormon. However, conservatives want to preserve at least some historicity for the Book of Mormon. This is why they support the LGT, because it creates some wiggle room for historicity. Liberal Internet Mormons are much more likely to hold the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction."

What I think you will see in the new Mormon Review is a publication that will never interest the average Mormon. Thus they can print pretty much whatever they want because no one will ever know they published it. It will be filled with esoterica and academese, because I think the impetus for the publication will be to achieve "academic respectability," not defend the LDS church or its doctrines.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Aristotle,

I read your post just now and boy, do you have a keen eye. I didn't know there WAS a fight for "NAMIRS"! I had no idea. I knew the T&S-type crowd was typically wary of FARMS, but I did not know they had a real presence there. The "Mormon Studies" slant I knew was replacing the evidence-based scholarship as I announced the death of the LGT theory at the MI a year ago (and Dr. Scratch announced the rise of "Moby Dick" apologetics), but not because of a battle, but rather because Midgley has always been into that angle, and that seemed to be the way to take Mopologetics. My "Internet vs. Chapel" wasn't meant to portray the battle at the MI that I didn't know existed, but the general battle in the Church, and if what you and Rollo are saying is correct in your other thread, it may be that the leaders are full-blown Internet Mormons now. But as you observe, there isn't one kind of Internet Mormonism. Both deny traditional Mormon doctrine, but in different ways. The slight overlap where Midgley's Pomo stuff and related at the MI is concerned has always struck me as more of a cheap shot to score a point, and not a serious commitment. I mean, it's one thing to say the enlightenment is dead and post a list of quote-mines, and another to simply do post-enlightenment kinds of scholarship, something the MI has only dabbled in -- the Pomo stuff I've reviewed before is more lip-service to Pomo winning than it is actual Pomo-based research. Even Martin Marty's essay and that edition of the Review was of the type: Pomo wins! Not any kind of "study" of what the Book of Mormon is like after winning. Smaller amounts of content there.

As you say in your other article, apologetics might be dead for good. Will that work? Well, do you think the brethren are ill-informed? Judging by sentiments from an econ teacher I had at the Y long ago, the Church does statistical studies up the wazoo and regresses tithing against every variable under the sun, and I take from that if Mopologetics made a difference, they wouldn't let this happen. Other religions may be behind the times, the Catholic Church has a huge campaign going to "answer" questions of its members. But the Church has excelled in the business world as a nearly a "start-up", and I think owns the Dale Carnage approach to success, where "truth" simply doesn't matter. That this superficial counterpart to the overly serious and wordy pronouncements of "liberal scholars" finds a friend here kind of makes sense.