From My Informant: Changes Afoot at the New MI?

[_Kishkumen]

I have a few thoughts on this OP.

My first thought is that Midgley has a damned odd definition of scholarship, if he really intends to include Greg Smith's rotten tripe in that category. Smith's talents are more suited to partisan politics than religion or academics. No, it is not that religion or academics are pure; it's that Greg lacks subtlety.

In any case, I should hope that the powers that be would think long and hard before turning the keys to Maxwell over to FARMSian polemicists again. It is not good for BYU or the LDS Church.

There are a few reasons not to dismiss the possibility, however. The first is money. Conservative Mormons with deep pockets will hand big bucks to a Maxwell that rabidly attacks liberal Mormons and anti-Mormons. They want lions, not lambs. Secondly, the most straightforward reading of President Hinckley's invitation to FARMS to join BYU is that the prophet made an inspired decision to support apologetics officially. Any other argument is weaker in the context of current LDS culture.

Thirdly, Givens and many of his friends are deeply committed to the vigorous defense of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. If there is an LDS scholar today who has real pull in the Church, it is Givens, and he stands much taller in terms of scholarly heft and reputation than most other concerned academic parties. Gee, Peterson, and others are small potatoes compared to Givens. Read his book, By the Hand of Mormon, in which he gives FARMS big props and lends their project legitimacy.

So, if Doctor Scratch's information is right, then we may well see a reversion to an aggressively apologetic Maxwell. Givens may not lead the effort, but he will doubtless be happy to continue to lend support to the FARMS method, at least in certain areas.

What role does John Dehlin have in this? Perhaps he and his followers show that, much like the Sunstone crowd of generations past, here is a path out of the Church (statistically speaking), not a means of finding one's way back. Although there is no necessary connection between the new Maxwell and Dehlin, the impression of an association of some kind may not bode well for new Maxwell.

In my view, new Maxwell has nothing to do with secularists or liberals or abandoning apologetics. Those who trash new Maxwell with these labels are fundamentally misguided or self-interested and misguiding. It is about BYU operating as an institution of higher learning instead of a home for internecine religious warfare and polemics. It is really way too early to judge the future of new Maxwell. A reversion to old Maxwell would appear to be a factional power play such as DCP has sought to accuse Bradford of spearheading.

[_Gadianton]

You know, Church leaders are a queer lot and I'm not sure always see the big picture the way that we do. While there may be factions, the leaders have God complexes and may see a different set of stakes. When I was on a mission, I remember one particular area as the golden time, a balance between relative success and enjoyment of living from day to day without many issues from home base. Then my comp got transferred, and the legendary self-righteous, McConkie letter-of-the law man of the mission with people skills registering in the negative, took his place and the work slowed and stalled, and I got transferred, thankfully, after a month. Taking my place was the legendary apostate Elder who broke every rule in the book but had tremendous charisma and people skills. The work completely fell apart as the two hated each other to the point of near physical blows. The Mission president left them together for five months, and it appears his interest was in teaching them both a lesson, one neither learned, and that this superseded any practical goals for getting investigators.

While I can see the Old School getting a place back, and even deposing of the current leader, I have to wonder if we'd be in for a full change of guard. After all, the last change including much of taking one's ball and going home, in addition to the real impacting admin decisions. It might just be that Church leaders don't see the long-term practical benefit of either approach as significant enough to warrant a micro-managed reorg from themselves, and expect the two factions to coexist, and are interested in playing God, and forcing these folks to get along. If that's the case, we're in for an increase in popcorn sales.

[_moksha]

I expect that something like this [i.e., Nixon's resignation?] will eventually happen with the “new direction” at the Maxwell Institute. I am even hoping that something approaching a reconciliation can take place.

Time for the old Kaiser to make way for the Chancellor, who will restore the Maxwell to its former glory and insure that a new generation of attacks will glorify the Patriarchland.

[_Markk]

I have a few thoughts on this OP.

My first thought is that Midgley has a damned odd definition of scholarship, if he really intends to include Greg Smith's rotten tripe in that category. Smith's talents are more suited to partisan politics than religion or academics. No, it is not that religion or academics are pure; it's that Greg lacks subtlety.

In any case, I should hope that the powers that be would think long and hard before turning the keys to Maxwell over to FARMSian polemicists again. It is not good for BYU or the LDS Church.

There are a few reasons not to dismiss the possibility, however. The first is money. Conservative Mormons with deep pockets will hand big bucks to a Maxwell that rabidly attacks liberal Mormons and anti-Mormons. They want lions, not lambs. Secondly, the most straightforward reading of President Hinckley's invitation to FARMS to join BYU is that the prophet made an inspired decision to support apologetics officially. Any other argument is weaker in the context of current LDS culture.

Thirdly, Givens and many of his friends are deeply committed to the vigorous defense of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. If there is an LDS scholar today who has real pull in the Church, it is Givens, and he stands much taller in terms of scholarly heft and reputation than most other concerned academic parties. Gee, Peterson, and others are small potatoes compared to Givens. Read his book, By the Hand of Mormon, in which he gives FARMS big props and lends their project legitimacy.

So, if Doctor Scratch's information is right, then we may well see a reversion to an aggressively apologetic Maxwell. Givens may not lead the effort, but he will doubtless be happy to continue to lend support to the FARMS method, at least in certain areas.

What role does John Dehlin have in this? Perhaps he and his followers show that, much like the Sunstone crowd of generations past, here is a path out of the Church (statistically speaking), not a means of finding one's way back. Although there is no necessary connection between the new Maxwell and Dehlin, the impression of an association of some kind may not bode well for new Maxwell.

In my view, new Maxwell has nothing to do with secularists or liberals or abandoning apologetics. Those who trash new Maxwell with these labels are fundamentally misguided or self-interested and misguiding. It is about BYU operating as an institution of higher learning instead of a home for internecine religious warfare and polemics. It is really way too early to judge the future of new Maxwell. A reversion to old Maxwell would appear to be a factional power play such as DCP has sought to accuse Bradford of spearheading.

Hi kish,

Under GBH, there were far too many embarrassing and hard to believe defenses that came out of mopology...remember the old cartoon that had the GA's standing in line to get on a bus with the destination sign reading FARM's? That was really a reality. These guys were defining LDS thought while the GA stood silent. I believe Monson understood this, and put a stop to it, in that FARM's theology had truly assimilated into LDS thought and defense...it is still there and has turned into standard talking points for the wanna be mopologist...e.g. the BC space's. The Adam God jr, the LGT, Divine council as a proof text for becoming a god...etc. All of which fall short of offering a cemented logical answer in that they undermine previous inspired teachings, or the brethren themselves.

I believe the bottom line was that DCP and the boys were getting to big for the brethren to handle...if a 'thinking" Mormon wanted an answer...where did you guys first go? Not to the GA's...they haven't written anything "profound" since BRM...and that fell apart rather easily by Evangelical nobody's, like me...easy pickins. So in order for the church to survive, and while the GA under Hinckley were busy building temples and LDS inc. Mopolgy lead the charge.

So in regards to your last paragraph, I believe the NMI is what it is now, and Mopolgy stifled , is that it just got out of control and Monson saw that, and did something about it. That is why I wonder "if" Monson is indeed failing; are the brethren that may have disagreed with Monson ready to go back to the in your face apologetics of the Hinckley Presidency?

I am either real close on this, or way off...but after umpteen years on the boards, and stepping back... it really makes sense to me at how all this has progressed, and... from looking at it from the lens of being a evangelical for the very most of those years.

[_Bazooka]

This all has the feel of amending seating arrangements on the deck of a stricken cross Atlantic cruise liner.

[_Tom]

The shake-up at the Maxwell Institute has begun.

[_Kishkumen]

The shake-up at the Maxwell Institute has begun.

Greetings, Tom:

Thanks for this information. Out of curiosity, what makes you think this news in particular is evidence of the initiation of a shake up at Maxwell?

Thanks again,

Kish

[_Tom]

The shake-up at the Maxwell Institute has begun.

Greetings, Tom:

Thanks for this information. Out of curiosity, what makes you think this news in particular is evidence of the initiation of a shake up at Maxwell?

If I understand correctly, C. Griffin was Associate Executive Director of the MI. I assume that he's being moved aside as a prelude to replacing G. Bradford at the top. But I'm probably wrong.

[_Ludd]

The shake-up at the Maxwell Institute has begun.

Greetings, Tom:

Thanks for this information. Out of curiosity, what makes you think this news in particular is evidence of the initiation of a shake up at Maxwell?

Thanks again,

Kish

I wondered the same thing. If anything, this move appears to be more consistent with "business as usual" than any kind of "shake-up".

Based solely on his photo on the MI website, I'd say Bradford must be pushing 80, and so one would think he has already gone quite a few years past normal retirement age. If we were to find out tomorrow that he has retired, why should we think that has anything to do with a "shake-up" at the MI?

Now, if DCP were made director of the MI after Bradford's retirement (followed immediately by Blair Hodges and others being fired) then I suppose that would qualify as a "shake-up". But somehow I can't see the head honchos in SLC reversing course on the MI so quickly after cleaning house back in 2012.

[_Ludd]

If I understand correctly, C. Griffin was Associate Executive Director of the MI. I assume that he's being moved aside as a prelude to replacing G. Bradford at the top. But I'm probably wrong.

How many "Associate Executive Directors" are there? The title itself sounds to me like something you give to someone who isn't getting much of an annual raise, in order to make them feel better about the whole deal.